PBS

So the House has added about $100 million dollars back to the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Of course this was only after being flooded with e-mails and calls from their constituents supporting PBS and NPR. I'm kina divided on this. I listen to NPR everyday and thus am well aware of the value of the content it provides. The types of stories I hear on "All Things Considered" and "Morning Edition" are not found anywhere else. However, I also see how in a time of huge budget deficits it is very attractive to try to cut funding for cultural programs, such as PBS or the National Endowment for the Arts, especially by an administration that often views these programs as liberal leaning.

In the end I come out in support of these types of programs. Many conservatives believe these should only be privately supported and not publicly funded. However, conservatives always tend to think of things economically and not for their cultural benefits. Without government support these programs, along with museums, would wither and die due to lack of funding. American culture is already relatively weak. Without them American society would become more brutish and ignorant than it already is. I am therefore thankful the government has decided not to cut their budget as much as originally intended.

Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.

A huge travesty has occurred today. The Supreme Court has decided in a 5-4 decision that government can take private property and give it to another private entity for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenue.

This is abysmal. The Constitution's Fifth Amendment specifically addresses this issue in stating that government can take private property only if the purpose is for public use and if the owner receives just compensation. The Court has, in the past, stretched the definition to mean government can take blighted areas to rehabilitate them. That wasn't an issue here. The government did not claim this area was blighted. They claimed they had developed an economic plan that will improve the area and "will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs and increased tax revenue."

With this decision all private property can be confiscated if someone with money wants to build an office building or even a larger house so long as the project either creates new jobs or increased tax revenue!!! It doesn't matter how long you've lived there or how well kept the property is. If someone else can use it and tax revenue will be increased then the government can now take it. This needs to be fought. Please contact your local politicians to have them fight to re-establish the sanctity of private property. There are also two organizations who fight against eminent domain abuse: The Institute for Justice and the Castle Coalition .

With this decision the Supreme Court has hamstrung private property owners.

Social Security

So it appears a bill may be coming before Congress to reform Social Security without the personal accounts the President has been pushing for. Utah Sen. Bob Bennett has spoken to the President regarding his bill and hopes to bring it to the floor possibly as early as next week. The President is reported to have indicated Sen. Bennett should go forward with his legislation, although he still has not given up on personal accounts.

So does this mean a deal may be forthcoming? Can some kind of reform now be discussed between Democrats and Republicans to try to "fix" Social Security? I'll believe it when I see it.

Here is the problem, which I don't see either side compromising on. Liberals support the program because it is, in essence, a welfare or socialist program. Money is taken from those who earned it and redistributed to those who are no longer productive workers. This is also the reason conservatives have always hated it. Anything tinged by socialism is considered evil. Just see how they view the left leaning nations of Europe. In my opinion so what if Social Security is a welfare or socialist program. Most people make terrible choices when it comes to their money. I personally know a number of people under age 40 who haven't saved a dime for their retirement. If they lose their jobs today they wouldn't be able to live in their current home for more than a month because they live paycheck to paycheck. When these people become old and can't work anymore are we to just throw them to the dogs and let them die because they either couldn't save or made bad financial choices? I'd rather take a bit out of my paycheck every time so the elderly can keep some semblance of independence. These people have to pay their bills just like everyone else. I'd rather we helped them do that than shuffle them off to retirement homes or onto the streets.

I don't have any answers on how to fix the program. Nobody does or it would have been done years ago. The only thing we should do is encourage personal savings through more financial education. Most children go through high school and college never taking a personal finance class. Yet the nation is outraged to hear America has a zero savings rate and personal bankruptcies are at all time highs. How can we expect people to save enough for their retirement when most people don't know the difference between and IRA and a savings account? We need to have at least a semester class going over the basics as a requirement for getting a high school diploma. Only then may we start fixing many of the economic problems we have.

Through other eyes

Take a look at the site Watching America. It provides English translations for articles written in foreign news sources. Its interesting to see how Americans are viewed by the rest of the world.

Bolton

Well, once again a vote to either approve or deny John Bolton's nomination to be UN ambassador has been denied. The Democrats know they can't muster enough votes to reject him, but they can't bring themselves to allow him either. And so more delaying and gridlock. This is getting real old real quick. I don't like the idea of him being ambassador to the UN either, but when you are defeated you accept it and move on. Unless you're a politician. Then you delay and request additional information you know you'll never get just so it looks like the other side is being stubborn. And so the soap opera that is Washington rolls on.