Stop growing the nation’s debt

So, the government is sending us more money for pandemic relief.

I’m not going to complain. I have a need for the money, or more accurately, my car has a need for the money. A broken air conditioner and four balding tires will eat up a big chunk of the check Uncle Sam says is coming.

That being said, I lied to you. I am going to complain. As much as I can use the money — and I will use it — I would rather not have it in the first place. I know that’s hypocrisy, but the way I see it is it was my money to begin with. After all, the government can’t give what it first hasn’t taken. Actually, that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Our government quit doing that and has been digging us deeper into debt than we can ever pay back for many generations to come.

At the time of this writing, the United States is about $28 trillion in debt. Of that, $1.9 trillion is being spent on the latest pandemic-related economic stimulus. That doesn’t count the trillions that were spent last year under the Trump Administration. The dollar figures we are talking about here are unfathomable. The debt we are creating is unconscionable.

Taking a look at the latest $1.9 trillion stimulus alone, that is more than $5,789 per person in the United States (and more than $247 per person worldwide). When you consider that there are about 145 million taxpayers out of the 328 million people in the country, that comes to $13,103.45 per taxpayer. That means the federal government has taxed each tax-payer more than $13,103 and given back $1,400 to some but not every taxpayer.

The top wage earners (the ones who contribute the most) will see little to none of that money. Most of the money will go to those who paid far less (if any) in taxes than they will receive in stimulus money. Is it just me or does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? Granted, most of the money is going to economic programs, but that’s usually another way of saying pork.

I’m not an economist and I’m far from being a financial expert (I barely passed math in school), but I can clearly see that what the government is doing makes absolutely no sense at all. In order to give us a tiny economic boost now, Uncle Sam has indebted our great-great-grandchildren. And there is no end in sight to the spending spree in D.C. President Joe Biden campaigned on, and is now prepared to deliver, a massive tax increase. That money isn’t going to be used to pay off debt, but rather to grow the government and increase our debt.

 

How do we stop the madness?

The only way to control the country’s finances is to first control the spenders — every member of the Senate, House of Representatives, and the White House. It doesn’t matter which party is in control, both are equally guilty of digging us deeper into debt. Republicans voted for stimulus spending under Trump and Democrats under Biden. Both have voted to raise the debt ceiling in the past.

My recommendation is to eliminate career politicians. We have term limits in the White House and we need them for both houses of Congress. If a president can’t hold office any longer than eight years, why should anyone in the House or Senate? When politicians are less concerned about re-election, they can be more concerned about representing the best interests of their constituents.

We also need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The federal government should be required to live on less than it makes, not more. Part of the budget needs to include a funding category for debt reduction. Our government should be required to determine where it will get every dollar it spends rather than deepening the debt hole. If our elected officials cannot do this, they need to be replaced. It’s simple accountability.

Another thing we should strive for is political unity. As Republicans, Democrats, independents, etc., we have more in common with each other than not, but you wouldn’t know that in the halls of Congress and on talk shows across the airwaves. Just because an idea comes from the other side of the aisle doesn’t mean it lacks merit.

As Stephen Covey wrote in “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Before vilifying something just because it comes from the other party, hear them out and study it. It’s better to come back with constructive criticism than a blanket rejection.

Who knows, maybe this is just simple-minded, idealistic daydreaming. Maybe I’m right on point. It will be something to contemplate later while I’m waiting at the shop for my car to get fixed.

Time to stop Patrick’s star-spangled blunder

  In his former life, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick was a radio host and an ardent protector of free speech. So what happened?

Has he become so engrossed in patriotic politics that he has completely forgotten what free speech actually is?

Patrick recently listed his top 31 legislative priorities for the session currently under way in Austin. Fourth on his list is the Star-Spangled Banner Protection Act.

This bit of political rhetoric ranks above much more relevant and important pieces of legislation such as statewide broadband access, bail reform, ending taxpayer-funded lobbying, banning the sale of personal data by state agencies, appellate court reorganization, ending racist restrictions from real estate deeds, and — last on his list — the Senate Redistricting Act. Redistricting is huge and should be nudged up somewhere in the top 10, say perhaps No. 4.

Let it be known up front that we are all for playing the “The Star-Spangled Banner” before sporting and other major events. We believe in patriotism, supporting our troops and honoring our country. What we are against is this gross violation of the First Amendment — one of the keystone rights we hold dear and that is inherently represented by the U.S. flag and anthem.

Patrick took up this standard last fall when it became known that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban had his team stop playing the anthem before home games. (The NBA subsequently reversed that decision.)

“It is hard to believe this could happen in Texas, but Mark Cuban’s actions of yesterday made it clear that we must specify that in Texas we play the national anthem before all major events,” Patrick said in a statement. “In this time when so many things divide us, sports are one thing that bring us together — right, left, Black, white and brown. This legislation already enjoys broad support. I am certain it will pass, and ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ will not be threatened in the Lone Star State again.”

As deplorable as Cuban’s decision was, this proposed bill by Patrick is worse. Mandating speech is as gross a violation of the First Amendment as oppressing speech. Patrick should know this. If he does, he has chosen to shun it in favor of political points.

For perspective, we all know that Frances Scott Key (who incidentally was a pro-slavery Southerner) wrote “The Star-Spangled Banner” in 1814 during the War of 1812. What most people don’t know is that the North wrangled it as a patriotic tune during the Civil War. It was at that time on May 15, 1862, in Brooklyn, New York, that it was first performed in connection with a sporting event, or rather at the dedication of a baseball field.

After that, it was usually played during Opening Day ceremonies, but not at every game. That changed in 1918 during World War I. In the first game of the World Series, the Boston Red Sox, led by Babe Ruth, were playing the Cubs in Chicago. It was a time of national despair; the weather was bad and the mood of Cubs fans was somber. “The Star-Spangled Banner” was performed, and the crowd rose to its feet in inspiration and joined in the singing. The mood changed.

That led to the song being performed before regular baseball games and also at other sporting events, aided in part by the creation and use of public address systems. In 1931, it became the national anthem. By the time World War II rolled around, it was cemented as the traditional start of any sporting event across the country. It was never mandated, just tradition.

That’s where Patrick’s bill enters a legal limbo. It would be the first to mandate a performance at state-funded facilities. There is not nor should there ever be any law requiring citizens to perform any speech, song, anthem, or any other such form of communication unless compelled to do so under oath in a court of law.

You can’t legislate patriotism. Besides, how patriotic would it be for the government to punish someone for not performing the anthem?

Patrick’s proposed legislation would be unprecedented, illegal and unconstitutional. It should be dropped from his list and removed from the Legislature’s plate so the real work of the people can be done. – J.S. (Editorial for the Fredericksburg Standard-Radio Post)

Exploring Mars is the cool thing to do

Last week we were all mired in a bitterly cold deep freeze, struggling through power outages, water loss, and other related unpleasantries.

While we were all hunkered down awaiting our day in the sun, something spectacular was happening millions of miles away on Mars (a place much colder than Texas was last week, by the way). The Perseverance Rover safely landed on the Red Planet, becoming the third earthborn spacecraft to arrive there in the span of two weeks. The previous week, Hope from the United Arab Emirates and Tianwen-1 from China, went into orbit around Mars. Perseverance, however, shot right past them for a soft landing on the surface.

The rover is the fifth one NASA has landed on Mars and is one of two currently in operation there. Piggybacked on Perseverance is the Ingenuity helicopter, the remotest of all remote-controlled aircraft. Its purpose is to demonstrate the ability to fly an aircraft in the thin Martian atmosphere (and to shoot a few really cool photos while it’s up there). The copter is scheduled for five flights over the next month. Given NASA’s success rate with robots on Mars, I get the feeling there will be more than five flights before Ingenuity is done.

For those who are curious, this is a brief history of Martian rovers. The first was Sojourner, a 23-pound roving platform about the size of a suitcase that arrived in 1997 and lasted just over two months.

Sojourner was followed in 2004 by the twin rovers Spirit and Opportunity. Weighing in at 374 pounds each, they were the size of a golf cart. They landed in different regions of Mars and performed well beyond their expiration date. Designed to operate for a few months, Spirit rolled on for six years, sending its last signal in 2010. Its twin, Opportunity, set the rover time and distance records, lasting 15 Earth years, or eight Martian years, and covered 28 miles.

Curiosity arrived on Mars in 2012 and keeps on truckin’. It weighs nearly a ton and is the size of an SUV. Its primary mission is to find evidence of water.

Perseverance is based on the same design as Curiosity, coming in at 2,260 pounds and is about the same size. Its mission is to look for signs of past or present life and to conduct tests to see if Mars could be hospitable to humans. It will attempt to separate oxygen from carbon dioxide, among many other experiments. Perseverance’s batteries are powered by plutonium, so it is not reliant upon solar panels for power, giving it a potentially longer lifespan than any of its predecessors.

In May or June of this year China’s Tianwen-1 is set to land a rover on Mars on a 90-day mission. The UAE’s Hope spacecraft is an orbiter not designed to land.

Back in 1971 the Soviet Union sent two rovers to Mars. The first crash landed and the second stopped communicating just seconds after landing.

There is clearly a renewed interest in Mars and an unspoken space race has started to send the first humans there. NASA, which is the undisputed champion in human space exploration, is taking the scenic route this time, preferring to return to the moon first. Make no mistake, NASA is still in the running to land humans there some year.

The frontrunner right now is Elon Musk’s SpaceX. He is famously developing his Starship rockets here in Texas at Boca Chica. An unmanned ship could head to the Red Planet as early as next year. (The window for launching spacecraft to Mars opens every 26 months.) Musk has said from the start that his primary goal is to make humans a multiplanetary species and that Mars is the first step.

China, Russia and other countries are also making plans for footsteps on Mars, but are way behind NASA and SpaceX. There are other private companies with designs for Mars exploration but hey have yet to get off the ground. Barring a surprise from China or elsewhere, the safe bet is for SpaceX to arrive their first with human passengers in the late 2020s, followed by NASA in the 2030s, assuming NASA doesn’t give up because it’s not first. Either way, mankind is destined to explore Mars and beyond and these rovers (and helicopter) are paving the way for that to happen.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, Curiosity reported last week that Mars had a high of 14 degrees and a low of -117. If you thought Texas was in a cold spell, you should try taking a stroll on Mars! 

Texas can’t run from the nation’s problems

Every biennium as the Texas Legislature prepares to meet there is the traditional blizzard of pre-filed bills.

Hidden among the mundane are local pork projects and items of political importance to legislators and their constituents. Some are clanging attention-getters with no real intent of ever being acted upon. This year the resounding gong comes from our own Rep. Kyle Biedermann. He put forth the so-called Texit bill that would have voters deciding if Texas should remain part of the United States of America or secede and become its own country.

To a lot of Texans fed up with the direction this country is heading and the liberal takeover of the federal government, the idea of striking out on our own has a sweet sound to it. It’s only when you listen to the facts that it becomes clear that Biedermann’s bill has a hollow ring to it.

The biggest problem with House Bill No. 1359 is that it is illegal. No matter how disgruntled we become with Uncle Sam, Texas is permanently and irrevocably linked to the rest of the union.

“The legality of seceding is problematic,” Eric McDaniel, associate professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin told The Texas Tribune. “The Civil War played a very big role in establishing the power of the federal government and cementing that the federal government has the final say in these issues.”

McDaniel’s opinion echoes that of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in 2006 that, “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”

The idea of secession is nothing new. Texas was born of secession in 1836 following the war with Mexico. After nine years of self-government as its own nation, Texas joined the United States via a treaty.

That treaty gives Texas the right to divide into five states – Texas and four others – but it does not give Texas the right to secede. Although Texas attempted secession with the rest of the South during the Civil War, that proved to be a failure.

Another thing that will doom Biedermann’s bill in the unlikely chance it even gets a hearing in Austin are the voters. Ultimately, it will be very difficult for most any Texan to pull the lever in favor of ending the comfort and security of their U.S. citizenship in favor of the unknown.

So, while the secessionist rhetoric might sound adventurous and enticing, it comes with dark undertones that ultimately make the effort a waste of time. Instead, let’s focus on the problems and become part of the solution. That’s the Texas way.

J.S. (An editorial for the Fredericksburg Standard-Radio Post)