Ground Zero Mosque?

No, and not because I am against Muslims. Just as I would disagree with the Klan erect an eternal flaming cross, outside the hotel where Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. Mr President can you honestly say that the Klan has the right do so, as you have said it would be appropriate to place an Islamic center, so close to ground zero? What would be the difference? It is one thing, to place a mosque anywhere, in the United States, as they have. But to place one so close to such a location as ground zero.... Consider this many of the foriegn countries who are actually financing this mosque, will not allow a Christian Church, or Jewish Synagogue to be erected on their soil. Again, I say no, No to placing a mosque in such a location, for which the sole purpose is to thumb their noses at us. Would we have placed a monument to the Enola Gay, and her crew in Hiroshima? Or a muesuem dedicated to the B-17 Flying Fortresses of WWII in Dresdan Germany? Should we allow a mosque near ground zero? I don't think so, for the same reason I wouldn't wear a Oakland Raiders jersey at Foxboro station, unless I wanted someone taking potshots at me. Maybe that is what they want.

Rerun Reaganism

History gives us an insight on, how long a recovery might take. Since World War II of the U.S economy has had only one increase in the employment-population ratio of five percentage points in a single decade: the recovery Ronald Reagan's fueled with his 1983 tax cuts.
The employment-population ratio recovered less than two years after hitting bottom, during the mid 80's. This generated a momentum that continued through the rest of the 80's, due to 1986 tax reform that reduced the top marginal income tax rate to 28%, this allowed America to employ the millions of women, baby boomers, and immigrants who were actively looking for jobs. At the end of the boom in 1990, the employment ratio increased from 57% to 63%.
An administration which pursues job creation — not ideology — would note this record and see how companies and individuals create wealth and jobs if they have the right incentives. Instead, the current Administration has policies that are muddied with ignorance and have bought into the notion that recovery can only happen with higher taxes and greater regulatory burdens. This is causing consumers to restrain spending, and business to cut back production, reduce costs (i.e. lay off workers, middle managers, rely on part time workers, shift the cost of benefits onto the employees as well as cutting back the number of benefits) creating such a drag on the economy that even the government cannot reverse, even through the use of stimuli, that really shift the burden of the recovery onto the taxpayers who are making less and paying more to support proven the failure of socialist and communist regimes.
We have no time to waste. Rather than talk down Reaganism, the Politicians in Washington should heed its lessons and unleash the American Economy with a hands off approach that alone can put us back on track and prevent us from repeating the past of Carter or worse prevent us from reliving the great depression. Ronald Reagan while campaigning for office said "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." it is time to edit this to "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid lose theirs"

Remarks by the President on Unemployment Insurance

Rose Garden 10:55 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. Right now, across this country, many Americans are sitting at the kitchen table, they’re scanning the classifieds, they’re updating their resumes or sending out another job application, hoping that this time they’ll hear back from a potential employer. And they’re filled with a sense of uncertainty about where their next paycheck will come from. And I know the only thing that will entirely free them of those worries –- the only thing that will fully lift that sense of uncertainty –- is the security of a new job.

MY RESPONSE: That's right there are many Americans looking for a job, more than ever before, more than even during the Great Depression. In actual numbers not in percentage. But, still there are too many Americans out of work! Yes, they are uncertain about their futures, in a time where when you call your mortgage company to ask for a little more time to bring your payments up to date, and you hear a voice with an Indian or Pakistani accent and you know he is in some call center in New Delhi, or some other distant location. Knowing that the majority of Manufacturing jobs have left the country and are residing in Mexico, Indonesia, or Malaysia.

THE PRESIDENT: To that end, we all have to continue our efforts to do everything in our power to spur growth and hiring. And I hope the Senate acts this week on a package of tax cuts and expanded lending for small businesses, where most of America’s jobs are created.

MY RESPONSE: Spur the economy? you mean your stimulus packages that have sent billions of our money to 3rd world nations? Tax cuts? I thought you and your cronies said tax cuts were voo-doo economics? or is that only when Reagan or Bush asks for tax cuts? Maybe when you bailed out the big financial houses you could have used that leverage to cut the interest rates they charge the people who bore the burden of paying for their blunders. Do you even realize why most of America's jobs are created by small businesses? I'll tell you the big businesses are cutting back not expanding and as they cut back the nation falters even more. Your policies have crippled the Auto Industry. Your buddies who lined you campaign pockets with the dues of the unions, have attacked Detroit demanding even more benefits and more pay, for their rank and file who instead of seeing more jobs, see their jobs go overseas as the Nationally backed automakers in socialist Europe and Uber Capitalist Japan and South Korea.

THE PRESIDENT: So we've got a lot of work to do to make sure that we are digging ourselves out of this tough economic hole that we've been in. But even as we work to jump start job growth in the private sector, even as we work to get businesses hiring again, we also have another responsibility: to offer emergency assistance to people who desperately need it -- to Americans who have been laid off in this recession. We've got a responsibility to help them make ends meet and support their families even as they’re looking for another job.

MY RESPONSE: We? We can't dig out of a hole! when you dig in a hole one of two things happen, the hole gets deeper or just bigger. No wonder we in this mess, you idiots give us shovels when we need fill dirt. But, don't do us any favors there, with your track record we are likely to be buried. If you want to jump start job growth, scrap the IRS! replace it with a 10% National sales tax (exempting Food, Medical and the first $50,000 of home purchases or $500 of rent) take away the burden you and your past economic half wits have heaped upon us. Link tax revenue to spending not earning! Let every American take home his or her entire paycheck (including what our employers have to match) that would mean every American working would take home 30-40% more pay. Then all that extra money coming in means they would be spending it. Then a domino effect would drive the economy into hyperdrive. As spending increases, demand for goods increase, which means production increases, and finally jobs increase, which starts the cycle all over again. It is simple economics. By the way, really stimulate our economy bring back tariffs and make American made products more attractive.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s why it’s so essential to pass the unemployment insurance extension that comes up for a vote tomorrow. We need to pass it for men like Jim Chukalas, who’s with me here today. Jim worked as a parts manager at a Honda dealership until about two years ago. He’s posted resumes everywhere. He’s gone door-to-door looking for jobs. But he hasn’t gotten a single interview. He’s trying to be strong for his two young kids, but now that he’s exhausted his unemployment benefits, that’s getting harder to do.

MY RESPONSE: No, No, No! that is BS unadulterated BS! Has Jim applied at Wendy's? Burger King? Taco Bell? or is he too good to work fast food? They are always looking for good managers. He needs to show his kids the character in himself, that says I'll do whatever it takes to provide for my family. I will tell you why he didn't! those jobs made it more attractive to sit on his butt and collect a check larger than what they McDonald's will pay. Maybe now instead of waiting for someone else to help him, he'll help himself.

THE PRESIDENT: We need to pass it for women like Leslie Macko, who lost her job at a fitness center last year and has been looking for work ever since. Because she’s eligible for only a few more weeks of unemployment, she’s doing what she never thought she’d have to do -- not at this point, anyway. She’s turning to her father for financial support.

MY RESPONSE: What's wrong with families taking care of their own, they did it for years.... I have known people who consider it shameful to receive welfare. Not long ago (the 1950's) Indianapolis posted the names of those on welfare on billboards around that city, and the welfare roles decreased. We have made every attempt to remove the stigma of being supported by the government, we handed out Debit cards that look like credit cards to replace food stamps. Cashiers at grocery stores don't know the difference and let their customers buy alcohol and cigarettes with "MY" money. Then Medicare uses "MY" money to treat their over burdened Liver and smoke filled cancer ridden lungs. They eat steak, on "MY" money and you have taken so much of mine I eat hamburger and chicken.

THE PRESIDENT: And we need to pass it for Americans like Denise Gibson, who was laid off from a real estate agency earlier this year. Denise has been interviewing for jobs -– but so far nothing has turned up. Meanwhile, she’s fallen further and further behind on her rent. And with her unemployment benefits set to expire, she’s worried about what the future holds.

MY RESPONSE: Why was she laid off? Oh yeah, you and your cronies in Washington, created an environment where real estate values were over inflated. As you made it easier and easier for people who had no business buying houses they couldn't afford, buy bigger and better houses, hoping when the house of cards you created came crashing down. Then to make things worse, as the housing and finance industry faltered, someone had to pay and once again Washington reaches into the pockets of working Americans, decreasing our buying power, driving down demand, making production go down, causing industry to lay off workers or close shop and opening in other countries where minimum wage is less than $1.00 a day. causing the cycle to repeat and our country to get that closer to becoming a third world nation.

THE PRESIDENT: We need to pass it for all the Americans who haven’t been able to find work in an economy where there are five applicants for every opening; who need emergency relief to help them pay the rent and cover their utilities and put food on the table while they’re looking for another job.

MY RESPONSE: Look at your history, the fall of Rome, the fall of the Soviet Union had one common ideal "You cannot tax your way into prosperity"

THE PRESIDENT: And for a long time, there’s been a tradition –- under both Democratic and Republican Presidents –- to offer relief to the unemployed. That was certainly the case under my predecessor, when Republican senators voted several times to extend emergency unemployment benefits. But right now, these benefits –- benefits that are often the person’s sole source of income while they’re looking for work -– are in jeopardy.

MY RESPONSE: "You cannot tax your way into prosperity"

THE PRESIDENT: And I have to say, after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, the same people who didn’t have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn’t offer relief to middle-class Americans like Jim or Leslie or Denise, who really need help.

MY RESPONSE: Those tax breaks should affect all Americans, at the same rate. Under a national sales tax those who spend the most pay the most. Those who spend the majority of their income on food and shelter pay the least. The Rich who buy a $1,000,000.00 mansion will pay $95000 in taxes on that home the Poor who buy a $100,000 home will pay $5000 in taxes (1/20th of what the rich will pay for a mansion 10 times more expensive) and the family in rural Appalachia who buy a home for $50,500 will pay $50.00 (almost 1/100,000th of what the rich will pay for a mansion 20 times more expensive).

THE PRESIDENT: Over the past few weeks, a majority of senators have tried -– not once, not twice, but three times –- to extend emergency relief on a temporary basis. Each time, a partisan minority in the Senate has used parliamentary maneuvers to block a vote, denying millions of people who are out of work much-needed relief. These leaders in the Senate who are advancing a misguided notion that emergency relief somehow discourages people from looking for a job should talk to these folks.

MY RESPONSE: Again you want to give our money to other people so you look like the heroes. IT IS "NOT YOURS TO GIVE", IT IS OURS! (read Not Yours To Give by David Crockett in my Heroes and Roll Models blog) if you want to override the congressional vote, put it to us the American people let us vote on it.

THE PRESIDENT: That attitude I think reflects a lack of faith in the American people, because the Americans I hear from in letters and meet in town hall meetings –- Americans like Leslie and Jim and Denise -- they’re not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work. Just right now they can’t find a job. These are honest, decent, hardworking folks who’ve fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and who have nowhere else to turn except unemployment benefits and who need emergency relief to help them weather this economic storm.

MY RESPONSE: If they don't want a handout, don't give it to them, if they want secure jobs, give it to them. This Economic Storm, is not a natural phenomenon, it is a Frankenstein Monster created by a collection of mostly Lawyers who can't speak English without twisting the meaning of words

THE PRESIDENT: Now, tomorrow we will have another chance to offer them that relief, to do right by not just Jim and Leslie and Denise, but all the Americans who need a helping hand right now -- and I hope we seize it. It’s time to stop holding workers laid off in this recession hostage to Washington politics. It’s time to do what’s right -- not for the next election but for the middle class. We’ve got to stop blocking emergency relief for Americans who are out of work. We’ve got to extend unemployment insurance. We need to pass those tax cuts for small businesses and the lending for small businesses.

MY RESPONSE: I agree it is time to stop holding Americans hostage to Washington politics. It's time to hold Washington hostage to the American Voters. We don't need to give away money we don't have, we don't need to expand the deficit. We need to create jobs, and relieve the American Tax-payer of his Global Burden.

THE PRESIDENT: Times are hard right now. We are moving in the right direction. I know it’s getting close to an election, but there are times where you put elections aside. This is one of those times. And that’s what I hope members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will do tomorrow.

MY RESPONSE: We are moving in the wrong direction, we need to turn this contraption around and quit trying to dig our way out of a hole that eventually become so deep that the side collapse and bury us all.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks very much.

MY RESPONSE: Thanks very much. and remember "You cannot tax your way into prosperity"

Palestinian Situation

We hear the sound of our liberal brethren bemoan about the 711,000 Palestinians who 1) fled Israel or 2) were ejected from Israel; after Israel was created in 1948 by the Palestinian Mandate. As the region was divided by the British into two autonomous intertwined regions Israel and Palestine, the Arabic world decided to finish the job Hitler was unable to complete. That may sound harsh, but Saddam's own Ba'th party was deep into the hip pocket of the Nazi Regime. Also the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was a supporter the "final solution". So when in 1948, when the Nation of Israel was formed in the council halls of the United Nations, the Arabic resistance was less than passioned, for they had their own "solution". The word was spread by the Arabic world extending a faint hand to the Palestinians, leave Israel for a short time, and they would restore the Palestinians to their homes once they were rid of the vermin Jew. At the same time the 711,000 Palestinians fled Israel, the Arabic world forced 850,000 Arabic Jews from their homes in Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq and Yemen (In fact in several of these countries the Jewish population was established long before what has become today’s local population or over 1,000 years before the advent of Islam). These refugees were dumped into Israel, as their plan unfolded. Then when they thought the time was right, the combined Arabic world attacked Israel with the sole purpose of eliminating the Jewish people. The problem was, the Jews didn't roll over and play dead. Instead they fought back, leaving close to a million Palestinians homeless. Now we talk about them as victims, yet victim is hardly the word to describe them. Arafat the former savior of his people, wasn't even Palestinian, he was Egyptian. In my opinion if the Palestinians deserve a homeland it is up to the other Arabic nations to provide it to them, since they were the ones who orchestrated the refugee issue. The Jews were willing to create a country where Arab and Jew could live together in Harmony. They started their Zionist mission, by legally buying the land from the Arabs, which was taken away from them by the British, when the Arabs claim the Jews cheated them (even though the land was sold for 3-4 times it's value). So as far as I am concerned the Palestinians are along with their Arabic breathern are the authors of their fate and deserve nothing more than what Israel is willing to give them and or what their Arabic brothers will.

American Spoken Here

It is said the United States does not have an official language, however, it is generally accepted that English fills that spot. Now when our founding fathers sat down to discuss this subject many of them were so disgusted with England, that they refused to make English the "Official" language. Had it not been for the fact that Hessian troops were in British employment, to fight against us, The German movement might have had a chance of holding that honor. Despite, the myth, that because of one pro-German advocate suffering from diarrhea, English became our "Official" language. A vote never occurred and we just accepted English as the common tongue. Truth be told we don't have an "Official" language, but, English is the language used in documenting our official records, and the majority (for now) of Americans speck English. We need to establish English as the official language or perhaps since we are so far out of step with our British brethren, American as our Official language (despite the slang connection there). What would this mean? To most of us not much, Citizenship for example would be linked to speaking the American language. Official documents would no longer need to be printed in bi-lingual type. In the past, the key to successful integration into our society was linked with shedding the mother tongue and learning the language of America. When everyone is on the same page, we can all read it. I have nothing against foreign languages, and I think it is great that our children can learn other languages (I took German in high school myself). We cannot put ourselves through what the Canadians have put themselves through being bi-lingual. I remember spending the fourth of July in 1990 in Quebec, and having a waitress refuse to speak English to us, which changed once one of the guys tried miserably to speak french (which he took in high school so many years earlier), his Alabama accent was enough for the waitress to realize he was American not Canadian (she then explained that she and her friends were mad that French Canadians had to speak English, even though English Canadians could get away with not learning French) Do we really want to have that issue face us? Language unites us many languages divide us. If we accept Spanish as a second language, do we accommodate Chinese American the same way? Portuguese? French? Russian? Japanese? Italian? Korean? (need I list every language?) So I say lets do what our founding fathers should have done and make it "Official", American should be our official language.

Is Cash for Clunkers Stimulating our Economy? Or Bottlenecking Retail?

I live in Florida, where we just survived our bout with Obama's Transfer of wealth program called "Cash for Clunkers II, the Appliance Sequel". What a bust! If anything it hobbled the retailers. Working in the appliance retail industry, myself, I saw firsthand, how the Cash for clunker program suppressed sales in the days leading up the event people weren't going to buy if they could get a better deal later on, unless they had to); Then created a dam bursting effect during the two days that funding lasted. This was followed by a lull in purchases, afterwards due to out of stock situations at the Vendor level. At my store we saw an 18.5% loss in business up to the day prior the onset of "Cash for Clunkers", add in the next two days and we ended up with a 1% loss in sales over the previous year. You might say "well it was an increase so it must have worked!" This is what Democrats live for, the numbers do not lie they say, but, they do mislead. For example; In November of 2009 we ran a 20% increase in sales over the previous year (even with 2009 being a recession year) in December (the month the Cash for Clunkers program leaked out) we had an 20% loss in sales, In January we had a 16% loss of sales (as more people found out), February followed with a 25% loss, March showed a 21% loss, and the first part of April (the 1st through 15th the days prior to the Cash for Clunkers event) showed an 8% loss in sales. Now when you figure in the time frame from 12/01/2009 till 05/01/2010 and bounce it against the same time period 1 year ago you will see a 1% loss in sales. NO GROWTH! The Stimulus was a bust, at least in our store (makes you wonder how those numbers work throughout the state and the states which have already had their events, also what will be the effect in those states with upcoming events?). and when you look at the sales gain in November before the cash for clunkers info was released a 1% sales loss could have actually been as much as a 19% sales gain over the December/April time frame (had the trends continued on). This demonstrates that the government in order to increase sales actually created a bottleneck in the sales process, where the only sales being made were for products that did not qualify (Ranges, dryers, and microwaves; sales of which were also depressed because of people not understanding how the program worked) or for those products the consumer could not do without when their old unit failed (even then I personally sold inexpensive non energy star rated refrigerators that will make due until the event took place and will be relocated to the garage to serve as a beer frigs after their big fancy E-Star frig shows up). Then during the event, consumers found dwindling supplies that ran out or were backordered past the "have to have" date (May 10th which was recently extended to May 31st well after the event was over and that info is too late for consumers to take advantage of). Another matter is who paid for all of this? You and I did! That’s right, even if you didn’t purchase an appliance; you did $17,600,000 (in Florida alone) worth of appliances, since it was your tax dollars that funded the program. Now let me explain something more, this stimulus didn’t really help the lower or middle classes, not truly. There were those who were able to take advantage of the savings, but, for the most part the Upper Middle and Upper class were the major benefactors in this program. Just think the Lower class gets out of paying taxes, or even gets larger tax returns than their withholdings, and the Upper class has more write offs on their taxes, so what this did was transfer wealth from the middle class (who pays more taxes) to those who didn’t need it in the first place. There you have it a program designed to stimulate growth ended up retarding growth, increased the tax deficit, moved a lot of money around (and how much did the administration of that cost?) benefitted the wealthy, and finally make Obama and his Democrat cronies look like they did something good for the country… Talk about your smoke and mirrors!

Presidential Prerequisite

Since one of the job titles of the President is Commander-In-Chief, Prior Military Service should be a prerequisite, for the job. No Man or Woman should ever have the authority to send troops into harm's way if they themselves never stood in that position.

Pay Raises for Congress?

This past year Congress voted themselves a payraise and also refused to vote for a Cost of Living raise to those on Social Security and retired veterans. Shame on those money grubbing bastards! I propose a constitutional admendment

"Congress shall be prohibited from voting themselves a raise in any year that the Budget is not balanced, or there is an existing deficit. Furthermore, Congressional raises will be anchored to Cost of Living raises linked to retired benefits of those on Social Security or on Government Retirees to includse Military Veterans."

Wanna see a balanced Budget? make congress liable for their actions. In fact why not retain Congressional pay in those times where there is no federal budget in place. I don't mean suspend it and give it back to them, when they do. I mean when there is no budget in place, they don't get paid for that time frame. It would be rare to see suspended services when they can't get a budget out in time.

When Voting Becomes A Conflict of Interest

I know this will stir up a hornet's nest, but, I really believe this needs to be said. "People on public assistance, should not be able to vote." It is a matter of conflict of interest. Politicans will pander to these people promising them more aid, more money, for their votes. If people on welfare are restricted from voting, these same politicans will be more likely to help them with workable programs to get them off the public dole, instead of keeping them there. For instance, I have had single mothers working for me, who when given a raise, asked me to cut their hours, because they would earn too much and would lose benefits. A mere dollar increase, was causing them to lose two dollars in benefits. Why should we punish these people and make it harder to alleviate their situation. We should set up the system which gives them every opportunity to get free of the system. What should have happened is for every two dollar increase in earning they should have only lost one dollar in benefits. In so making it easier to get off the welfare wagon, and building self sufficient members of society, contributing to the GNP. That won't happen until politicans stop seeing the poor as a voting block, so they will have no interest in keeping them poor. I have no problem with giving assistance to those who need in the short term, but, we have created welfare as a career choice.

Good Morning Massachusetts!

A hearty Good morning to the people of Massachusetts who on this date woke up smelled the kool-aid and decided not to drink from it. Congradulations to Senator Brown (R-Mass) in his upset victory over the Kennedy Machine. Proving America, is not beyond hope.

A National Lottery To Select Our Legislature

Somehow, our representative government got away from representing us. If it does then we are a nation of Lawyers. Our founding fathers were Lawyers, Farmers, Businessmen and Clergy. But, today our Representatives are for the most part rich lawyers. I have to ask how does a lawyer know what Farmers need? How does a Lawyer know what Teachers need. If we got away from our current system of electing professional politicans (i.e. Lawyers) to our House of Representatives and went to a lottery system (much like drawing jurys from a voter pool) We would have a better cross section of our people representing us in the House. This would be similar to a grand jury, where people would serve a maximum of 2 years (maybe 1). We would have farmers, teachers, nurses, doctors, blue collar workers, military, businessmen and other fields who would serve accordingly representing their state.

The Senate Shall Follow....

From the Constitution Article I section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

What I propose is that We should use our Governors and Lt Governors as our Senators. The Governor would be the senior Senator, and remain in his state conducting the affairs of his state, the Lt Governor shall be the Junior Senator and seated in Washington D.C., conducting the affairs of the nation. When a vote or other such activity requires the attention of the Senior He may participate in the form of a video conference or if activities allow he may journey to the National capital as warrented.

This one action would save the National Budget $17,738,800 a year.

Also We should elect Governors and Lt Governors as we would President and Vice President, this action alone will prevent a Super majority existing in the senate, by splitting the parties into the Senate with minor allowances for third party Govenors

Return To The Original Selection Process

IAW (in Accordance With) the US Constitution Article II Section 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So What I am Saying is that the President and Vice President shall be from different parties. Forcing our administrations to be bi-Partisan.

You Want To Fix The Health Care System

See my post on Social Security.... Yes, Make Congress sign on to the program.... Under the new proposed system Congress will have the option of not participating, This is so wrong on too many levels. Make them stand in the same health care lines they want us to stand in. If they have to participate it will be a damn site better than what they will set up for us, if they don't.

You Want To Fix The Social Security System?

Easy, the first and most important thing you have to do is...... Make congress participate! that's right, make them sign up to be the first ones.... 1) drop their full paycheck for life. 2) Make them have to live off of what they want us to live off of. 3) Make them pay into Social Security at the same rates they want us to pay. If you do this it won't be long before they will straighten out the mess they created......