A SAD TREND

Recent rulings and decrees regarding brings me a great deal of sadness. These imminent changes are being made in the name of Political Correctness and are the continuation of a process that started a few years ago. Fortunately for me, I retired from the Navy before they began although even in 1980 the signs were evident.

Around 1990, the military treatment of Homosexuals changed from no tolerance to a rule called "Don't ask Don't tell"(DADT). The then new policy was one in which Homosexuals were tolerated so long as they did not show their sexual preferences. Now, DADT is soon to be scrapped for open acceptance of all no matter what their personal choices are. A few will cheer this; I won't. The damage will be greater than anyone can possibly expect.

Around the same time as DADT came into existence, so did barriers to females serving in traditional all male military positions such as combat arms and aboard combat ships. Although it was touted as a progressive equalization for females, the real reason for this move was simply that there were not enough qualified males to fill all of the required billets. But, I believe, that it was a mistake. Now, the last bastion of all male service is being negated by a policy of integrating females into Submarine service. This decision is in my opinion, ill advised.

During the time that Robert McNamera was the Secretary of Defense, he (his organization) proposed streamlining the services and cutting costs by making all services wear the same Uniforms. This move was roundly rejected because the Military Services still had some cohesiveness and pride in their organizations. Over time, the Navy tinkered with the enlisted uniforms that were really impractical and did not last. Ah, but now, there is a new regime that is enforcing the single outfit service uniform by causing all services to wear a form of "Fatigues" for almost all occasions. Soon, the services may make the people in these "look alike" uniforms, if they may be called "Uniforms", also be interchangeable with the services. Soon, we will no longer have Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and other so called uniformed services; we will have Department of Defense personnel who may or may not possess the requisite specific skills for their assignments; but, don't worry, there will always be time to train these folks for their new assignments.

All of these enhancements really won't matter because, with the tenor of the Federal Government the US will no longer need such skilled personnel anymore; third rate "Banana Socialist Republics" generally do not need a strong and proud military organization.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Below is a small history of Social Security. It may be appropriate to review this before Tax time and the Mid term elections of 2010.

Social Security - A SUMMARY!

Just in case some of you younger folks (& some older ones)

didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.

Now it is no longer voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the program,

Now it is 7.65%(more with add ons)

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

Now it is No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program,

Under President Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and spent by Congress

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees Would never be taxed as income.

Under President Clinton now Up to 85% of your Social Security payments can be taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of The money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away’, you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the

Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate while he was Vice President of the US

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve; maybe not. Some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM; Without being part of Social Security.

COINCIDENCE?

Strong snow storms have caused the Federal Government to shut down for the last three days. It seems that the Country is operating much better since this occurrence. I wonder if there is any correlation between the two. I believe it was said that less government is best.

WHY

I do not understand why every initiative from the Federal Government carries a high price tag. It seems to me that the Government could boost job creation without spending much if anything at all! All that may be needed may be something simple such as an encouraging word or a minor change in laws that could be pursued by Congress or, at worst, a small tax incentive (ie. reduce or eliminate some taxes). I haven't heard of any new initiative that will cost less than a BILLION dollars. As an example, create an incentive to get the US back into Steel production by providing a favorable set of regulations for some ongoing projects; or maybe reduce some requirements that would create a better business atmosphere for oil drilling or Nuclear power plant building (environmental concerns and gross over regulation has prevented any new nuclear plant construction since 1979!). What ever happened to the "Buy America" regulation/requirement for Defense and other Government agencies?