Congress: Stop The Budget Madness

The Republican controlled Congress has shredded its promises of fiscal responsibility.  Spineless House and Senate members rubber stamped a stopgap spending bill last week that likely will tack on another $1 trillion to the already bloated national debt.  Conservatives are feeling betrayed.

The House struggled to pass a $1.3 trillion spending package in the wee hours after months of wrangling.  The 2,232-page appropriations bill was rushed to the Senate for approval, allowing legislators little opportunity to wade through the morass of appropriation items.

Many senators admit they did not read every page in the omnibus spending package before it was approved just after midnight. Democrats share in the blame for going along with the compromise, which included funding for many of their pet projects in exchange for votes.

What has not been widely reported is the $1.3 trillion represents a mere down payment on a two-year budget agreement.  The appropriation approved last week only funds the federal government through the current fiscal year, which ends September 30.  Then the drama will begin anew.

News coverage has failed to mention the gargantuan budget only addresses discretionary funding. It does NOT include entitlements, such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.  There also is not one single dime in the budget for interest payments on the inflated national debt.

In bowing to pressure,  the GOP surrendered the high ground of fiscal conservatism. It has no one to blame but itself for the capitulation.  The party is a captive of Washington's chronically dysfunctional budget process.  However, Republicans have the power to fix it but they are cowards.

Almost 44 years ago, Congress approved the Budget Act of 1974 legally requiring members to pass an annual budget. After the president submits a budget proposal, the House and Senate are supposed to adopt their own budget resolutions and follow with spending bills to fund the fiscal plan.

Since the passage of the budget law, Congress has a abysmal record of adhering to its own appropriation deadlines.  Lawmakers have managed to meet their legal deadline just four times in four decades.  For the last six years, not a single appropriation has been enacted by the deadline.

This behavior encourages fiscal irresponsibility.  Senators and representatives are either too lazy, too incompetent or too disorganized to meet their goal.  There is no excuse for what passes as fiscal planning in Washington.  This is reckless chaos.  No business would operate this way.  

Americans have grown weary of the seemingly perpetual threat of a government shutdown as an excuse for abusing the federal budget process.  Members on both sides of the aisle wink at deadlines.  Their disregard for the process is deliberate and dishonest. 

The dirty little secret is that Congress prefers a frenetic pace.  In the final hours, members shoehorn pork barrel projects into the thousands of pages, hoping no one will notice until its too late.  Members votes are often exchanged for pet projects.  It's congressional bribery underwritten by taxpayers.

The midnight scramble also keeps the public from learning the details until the budget has been shoved across the finish line.  Members don't have to handle all those angry calls from constituents.  As soon as the gavel falls, members hotfoot it out of Washington for recess.

The charlatans refuse to face the music for their negligence.  When pressed, they blame the budget process. They blame the opposition party. None of that matters to Americans.  Members jobs are to fulfill their obligation to fund the nation's priorities in a timely, responsible manner.    

Representative Paul Mitchell of Michigan has joined some of his colleagues in demanding more accountability from Congress.  They have proposed a bill that requires Congress to pass a annual budget by June 30.  It's officially called the Protecting Our Children's Future Act (HR5214).

Under the bill's chief provision, if Congress fails to meet the budget deadline, members pay will be withheld. In other words, No Budget, No Pay.  Currently, there is no penalty for Representatives and Senators if they are derelict in their duty to enact appropriation bills on schedule.  

The measure would also streamline the process for passage of appropriations bills in the Senate, which often bogs down the budget process with archaic procedures.  Even when the House meets appropriation deadlines, the Senate drags its feet to force desperate short term measures.

In addition, the legislation would require zero-based budgeting.  Historically Congress uses baseline budgeting, which assumes the previous year's expenditures are the starting point. The new methodology would force the government to justify every dollar of spending each fiscal year.

Republicans hold the majority.  They have the ability to end the unscrupulous budget finagling in Washington.  They can clean up the swampy mess.  If Republicans won't keep their promise of fiscal responsibility, they deserve to be a minority party again. 

Censorship: Social Media Turns Political

Social media is transforming itself into a potent political force. Giants such as Twitter, Facebook and Google are exerting more control over content, employing stealth algorithms to censor or silence conservative voices.  There is a burgeoning backlash about the firms' dominance and influence.

Once social media was dismissed as irrelevant in the political arena.  But modern political campaigns direct their messages at their mushrooming audiences.  Barrack Obama hired an entire team of social media experts.  Hillary Clinton tagged a former Google exec as her chief technology officer.

Social media no longer takes a backseat to legacy media, including television, newspapers and radio. More people turn to social media for news.  Twitter has 157 million users.  Facebook counts 2.6 billion.  Google logs 3.5 billion searches every day.  Social media owns Americans' eyeballs.

A recent Pew Research Center report found 67 percent of all Americans report they obtain at least some of their news from social media.  TV is second with 57 percent.  And it's not just young people on social media.  One-half of Americans over 50 go to social media in search of news.

The Goliaths of social media, including Twitter, Facebook and Google, have virtual monopolies in their segments. As publicly owned companies, they theoretically have every right to foist their ideologies on Americans. However, most people are unaware the content is manipulated.

For example, enterprising undercover journalists recently exposed Twitter's use of guidelines that filtered pro-Trump posts on its site.  In addition, the reporters discovered Twitter was using a technique called "shadow banning" to hide conservative content from public view.

Twitter users were never advised of the deception until news reports shined light on the practice.  Most free speech advocates believe the social media platform should have been upfront about their ideological approach.  But Twitter is not the only social sloth in the covert censorship business. 

Google employs auto-complete algorithms designed to erase certain disparaging and offensive terms from its content.  However, the company admits it's an inexact science.  Users have no idea what is being filtered and why. The search results reflect the biases of those who wrote the algorithm.

A few years ago the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opted to drop its antitrust lawsuit against Google despite finding its search algorithm was biased.  The exhaustive probe documented the firm promoted its own services at the top of search results to the detriment of its competitors. 

Despite the mountain of evidence, Mr. Obama's FTC dismissed the lawsuit against Google.  Surely it is coincidental that Google executives, led by parent company CEO Eric Schmidt, were frequent and large donors to Mr. Obama's presidential campaigns and Democrat causes.

If Google favored its own products and services, it raises suspicions that the company also adopts the same strategy with political candidates. As an example, the firm can rig the search results to produce the most favorable stories about a candidate to appear on the first page. 

The American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology did a study that showed the results displayed by Google influence political decisions by participants.  The research found this could tip an election by moving voters' opinions of candidates by margins ranging from 37 to 63 percent.

Another Google social media company, You Tube, has been stung with criticism too.  Media sources reported that Google had enlisted "trusted flaggers" to delete questionable video content.  It turns out one group it "entrusted" was the Southern Poverty Law Center, a controversial left-wing outfit.

SPLC promptly labeled many conservatives on YouTube as "extremists," including Dr. Ben Carson and Fox News contributors Laura Ingraham and Judge Jeanine Pirro.  However, the law center found nothing extreme about ANTIFA, a militant protest group with a record of inciting violence. 

For years Facebook has been featuring sponsored news ads in the feeds of its users.  This allowed Russian-backed firms to post fake news about Clinton and Trump on users' feeds.  Now Facebook is trying to clean up the mess it created by cracking down on deception.  But who makes that call?

A hush-hush algorithm is now trolling Facebook weeding out fake news.  Sounds like a good idea.  But the computer nerds at Facebook wrote the algorithm.  And they are mum about what kinds of items might be deemed to be inappropriate for its audience. Transparency be damned.

Why does any of this matter?  The answer is that every political campaign now uses social media to raise funds, hold virtual campaign rallies, advertise the candidates, organize volunteers and motivate voters.  It is a paradigm shift from legacy media to social media as the top election influencer.

But if that's the case, is that a good thing for America?

That question has yet to be answered.  If monopolistic social media behemoths decide to back a single candidate or ideology by censoring information, does that give voters a fair opportunity to make informed political decisions?  Americans need to start worrying about the answer.

Audrey Roy: A Tribute To Mom

The windows in our tiny home rattled as a Louisiana thunderstorm rumbled in the evening sky.  A flash of lighting lit up the faces of Mom and her four children clutching her night gown.  Huddled together in a bedroom, we felt the world might end.  Our fears rose as the storm boiled.

My Dad was driving home in the rainstorm to be with us after a week on the road.  He was the rock, a World War II veteran who stood tall in any disaster.  Mom was his opposite.  Yet on that evening she found strength in prayer.  As she began to pray in the darkened room, her voice soothed our distress.

Our small sounds soon joined hers. We prayed into the night until finally Dad arrived safely.  It was my first experience with the meaning of faith.  It wasn't some religious fantasy.  There was a God who listened, who cared, and answered prayers.  The lesson is embroidered on my heart.

That is one of my most vivid memories of Mom, Audrey Roy.  It happened when I was about six years old, almost 66 years ago.  But I have never, ever forgotten it.  Audrey passed away last week at the age of 96.  Her life was defined by her faith, her unconditional love for her children and my Dad.

Audrey's defining role as mother began in 1946 with the birth of twins.  Their names were Dean and Drew.  We were premature infants born in an era ill equipped technologically to deal with the medical consequences. Tragedy struck three days after our birth.  Dean passed away.

That episode affected Mom her entire life.  She recalled the hospital nurse had roused her out of a deep sleep to share the sad news.  From that day on, whenever she was startled out of a sound sleep, her first thought was a report of another child's death.  It was a secret cross she carried. 

By the time she was 40, Mom had seven children to raise.  She cooked three meals a day, cleaned the dishes, washed and ironed our clothes, supervised baths and always had a baby in her tender arms.  Mom seldom raised her voice, laughed often and treasured each moment with her children.

Despite the daily demands, she never groused or even looked exhausted.  Looking back, I realize I took her dedication for granted.  She had no life outside her kids.  Her entertainment was watching us grow and taking care of our every need.  I have no idea how she did it.

During our youth, the family moved a lot as Dad's career blossomed.  From Louisiana we packed off to two cities in Mississippi and then two towns in Texas.  Each address change created new headaches for Mom who had to find doctors and schools to accommodate her growing family. 

By today's feminist standards, she would be viewed as an unfulfilled women.  But Mom's achievements are beyond measure.  She was the first one to comfort when something hurt.  Or when there was a problem.  Or when things were rough at school.  We were always on her Worry List.

As we began to leave home, Mom shed a few tears, prayed harder and found her passion.  The woman loved playing Bingo. Dad once joked she was the only one he knew who played Bingo for 50 years and never won a game.  That was an exaggeration.  But her wins were few.  Her joys many.

In 2010, Mom moved again at the age of 90 after 47 years in El Campo, Texas.  It had to be traumatic at her age, but she never flinched. She settled in a senior living complex in San Antonio with Dad.  About a week later Dad passed away. His death left her alone for the first time in 67 years.

No one would have blamed Mom for falling apart.  Instead she was determined to carry on.  She had grand kids to cuddle and grown kids to fuss over.  A social worker called her once and inquired if she needed grief counseling.  Mom appeared confused.  "What for?" she inquired.  "I'm fine."

Mom embraced her new lifestyle, making new friends and trying new things.  She began exercise class at age 90, enjoyed watching the NBA Spurs on television and playing games of chance at her senior facility.  It was a humble life but she was a woman of simple tastes.

Well, except when it came to her hair.  Mom had the most beautiful coiffured gray hair I have ever seen.  She treated her hair as a national treasure.  She had a standing weekly hair appointment at the beauty parlor. She fretted over her hair on a windy day.  There was never a strand out of place.

In her final days in a hospital, a nurse appeared to evaluate her mental faculties. She asked Mom a stream of questions, including what year it was; where she lived; did she know where she was right now.  Mom shook her head "no" to each inquiry.  A frown creased the nurse's face.

Finally, my sister Charlene nudged the nurse.  "Ask her when her next hair appointment is," she grinned.  After the nurse posed the question, Mom answered: "I have a hair appointment on Wednesday and then the following Thursday I am getting a perm."  It was classic Mom.

I am going to miss her terribly.  But the lessons she taught me about faith and her examples of humility and service to others will last all my days.  She may be gone but she lives in the hearts of everyone who knew her, especially the children she doted on her entire life. 

Colonoscopy: One Of Life's Joys

A letter arrived bearing the return address of a gastroenterologist.  Never a sign of good news.  With trepidation, I slowly opened the envelope fearing the worst.  Reading the first line of the letter I felt my knees wobble.  It was time for a colonoscopy, the medical equivalent of water boarding.

My last procedure was five years ago, but the memories were permanently etched in my brain. The gruesome colon preparation.  Hours glued to the toilet.  The open flap at the back of my hospital gown.  The humiliation of others peering at my backside.  And those are the good memories.

For the uninitiated, a colonoscopy is a procedure to evaluate the inside of the colon or large bowel.  A gastroneterologist exams the bowel with a colonscope, a four-foot long, flexible tube about the thickness of your finger. There is a camera and a light mounted on the tip of the scope.

All that gear is inserted into the rectum and through the colon.  I know.  That image alone causes your cheeks to quiver.  (Note: If you are eating while reading this, my apologies.)   If there is any good news, it is that you are sedated during the approximately 30-to-60 minute procedure.

When I called the doctor about my appointment, a nurse explained that the preparation had been improved.  No more gallon jugs of foul tasting swill to gulp, she assured me.  I convinced myself it would be like drinking a cork-tainted Bordeaux.  An oenophile might blanch but I could do it.   

I scheduled my colonoscopy many months in the future hoping the American Cancer Society would decree that the procedure was obsolete.  A scientist had created a smartphone app that could examine your bowel just by waving the device over your body.  I believe in miracles.

But the day before the procedure arrived with no news of a scientific breakthrough. The instructions made it clear that fasting was required for 24 hours prior to the colonoscopy.  No solids.  Just jiggly Jello and clear liquid broth.  I swallowed so much Jello my blue eyes turned lime green.

At 5 p.m., I stared at the package of powder to be mixed with water.  The moment of truth.  I stirred the witch's brew in a glass and raised it to my lips.  With each gulp, my taste buds were under assault.  It was like drinking whale-polluted ocean water with extra salt added.

My stomach began gurgling almost immediately.  The noise was deafening after a few minutes.  I raced to the bathroom, lugging copies of John Grisham's entire collection of novels.  I was going to be in there a while.  Too bad the room wasn't soundproofed.

At 2 a.m., I swigged a final dose to start another colon cleanse.  Arriving at the outpatient facility, I looked like I was the loser of a mixed martial arts match.  I was hungry, sleepy and dopey. Think Cinderella's friends.  I was ushered into a tiny, curtained room and handed a hospital gown.

I pulled on the gown as I listened to other victims' moans.  One lady on the gurney next to me foolishly announced she wanted no anesthesia for the procedure.  I tugged at the sleeve of the nurse at my side.  "I'll take hers and mine," I whispered.  "And bring me a sleeping pill."

I was wheeled outside the vault-like rooms where the colonoscopy exams are preformed.  There was a line of gurneys with people eyeing each other.  Everyone in that holding pattern was praying for an eleventh hour reprieve.  Then a nurse fetched me and glided me into the Colonoscopy Cavern.

"Turn on your side and push out your tush," she instructed.  All I could think about was target practice at a gun range.  I hope the gastro guy found the bulls eye.  The anesthesiologist arrived with the drug cocktail.  The next think I remember was waking up in recovery with Dianna by my side.

She smiled at me as I emerged from my fog.  My stomach growled back at her.  My last meal had been more than 30 hours ago.  All I could think about was breakfast. I have no idea what perfume Dianna was wearing, but I swear it was Eau de Bacon. 

Once the doctor appeared bedside he pronounced my colon a fine specimen.  I felt relieve but I hallucinated that I glimpsed a waffle in his pants pocket.  As I left the outpatient facility, I was struck how painless the invasive procedure was.  If only some genius could think of a better prep solution.

And then I had a brainstorm.  Why couldn't patients chugalug a couple of blenders of prune puree?  It wouldn't taste so awful and it would produce the same results.  I have written letters to a couple of medical groups.  So far none have responded.  My guess is the medical profession prefers torture.