Uncommon Sense

The six people in the room decided to watch a Mets game together when the mom walks in and changed the channel to “her show.” Four co-workers agreed to go to a certain diner for lunch, as they jumped into the car the driver decided to go elsewhere. In both cases, the majority spoke but the minority ruled.

Most people get upset when the majority rules one way but the minority gets its way. Just ask any Democrat about the 2000 election results and you will get an earful. Yet, the Supreme Court will listen to arguments today to overturn a 2008 voter-approved ban on same sex marriage known as Proposition 8.

Proponents position the same sex marriage debate as a civil rights issue of marriage equality while those against lament for the sanctity of marriage and say the court should not redefine marriage. This issue has dominated more news coverage than warranted.

I do not think the Federal Government should not stick its Pinocchio nose where it does not belong. Same-sex marriage is a matter for the states to decide, not the Federal government. Nine states have approved same-sex marriage — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia.

On the other hand, 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. Why should a minority of states and people dictate what the country should do?

I am not against same-sex couples having the same legal access to attendant benefits or any other benefit afforded married heterosexual couples. There are legal ways to ensure that happens without the circus created by an issue driven media more intent on pushing an agenda than covering the news.

The mess began when President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law gives same-sex couples the legal protection they desire but the Federal Government does not recognize civil unions as marriage and US states are not obligated to recognize them because of DOMA.

It seems to me the federal government should amend DOMA to allow civil unions the same benefits as marriage. That will satisfy those who want equal rights and those who want to preserve the marriage definition. Of course that will not happen because each side has a political agenda.

If President Obama is serious about his position to recognize same-sex marriage as marriage he should put it on the November ballot for the nation to decide. The majority should rule.

The law of unintended consequences typically reveals itself as good intentions gone awry. I think childhood setbacks have scarred my generation because as parents we go out of our way to protect our children from the harsh realities of life.

The first reality is every competition has a winner and a loser. Even more jarring is the sad fact we lose more often than we win, we are wrong more often that we are right, and we make far more mistakes than any revisionist history can correct. I guess my generation did not get that memo because we give out participation trophies, refrain from calling the victors winners and the word losers do not cross our lips.

Are we doing our children any favors? Are we preparing them for life? Do we really think we are defending their self-esteem by pretending they did not lose? Here is the second reality; after children start kindergarten we are not fooling them. They inherently know the truth as we know our little darlings will turn into hormonal masses of emotional outbursts as soon as ten age years’ dawn.
David Fabrizio, the principal of Ipswich Middle School in Massachusetts, recently cancelled Honors Night because he felt it would be “devastating” to the students who worked hard, but just missed the cutoff grade. Really? You mean to tell me junior who just missed the cut does not hear about it from the Mensa-to-be candidate who qualified.

Does Fabrizio think by not having a night to honor those students who did earn the grade will make those who missed feel better? Is the new America a country that is more concerned about supporting those who did not while ignoring those who did?

A look at our tax code and welfare state should give you the answer. I guess the honor students need to give their fair share of grades back to those who just missed so we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
I feel bad for the child who just missed the grade or did not make the high school team. I want to encourage him or her as best I can to work harder or practice more. I do not want to give them a false sense of accomplishment because that will set them up for more devastation in the future.
I do not want to raise children to think they are victims. I do not want to raise children more interested in blaming someone than accepting responsibility. It starts with recognizing facts without trying to lessen the impact.

Ironically, teenage suicide was lower in the 1970s and 1980s when children were not sheltered from the harsh realities of life. Today, you have college students who cannot handle the pressures of expectations. What are they going to do when they have a mortgage commitment?

Young adults do not magically transform into people suddenly able to cope. It is a life lesson learned only one way. The hard way – people have to experience failure before they can understand success.

A rite of passage growing up is having a friend take his ball and go home when things are not going his way. When the hometown team trades a favorite athlete, several fans secretly hope the team loses to “teach them a lesson.”

Most of us expect fits of immaturity from children and, unfortunately, know that behavior is prevalent with our nation’s leaders. President Obama held his breath and cancelled white house tours as a means of showing the public that austerity measures mean we cannot have our cake after dinner.
As president, I expect him to fly across the nation to handle the nation’s business but not campaign. He had an opportunity to show leadership and cut his traveling circus to save money so when Mr. Smith goes to Washington he can visit the house he’s funding. However, a petulant child rarely does the right thing.

I spoke with a person at the FBI who told me the furloughs his team must take would jeopardize an operation. It was clear he knew other places for budget cuts that would be less intrusive but that is not how you play the game. This is a game of one-upmanship. It is all fun and games until someone dies.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, hit a new high in low in this stupid game. A few hours after an explosion killed seven Marines at a training exercise earlier today Senator Reid pretended to raise the matter to mourn the loss of life but then launched into the effects of the budget cuts brought on by the sequester. That is so silly on so many levels he may need to spend a day in those nice rubber rooms.

Congress, the Senate, and the President make the decisions. All government department heads can choose where to cut. They do not have to cut critical programs, people, or lifelines. They choose to because they want to gain political points.

The most aggravating thing about watching these so-called leaders is their apparent belief they are being sincere and people believe their hubris. They hold the purse strings but we hold their ability to keep their jobs. They all need to go. That will teach them a lesson!

Every conversation and media report about the federal budget presumes the entitlement programs are untouchable. The minute you presume something is off limits in any discussion, you limit your options to possible solutions.

Social Security in theory is a noble idea but not sustainable when logic is introduced. Despite where you land philosophically on whether the federal government should offer citizens a retirement plan, the ability for the federal government to fund the program in the future is not possible.

According to a Congressional Research Service report, The Changing Demographic Profile of the United States, March 2011, the projected population of people 65 years or older will reach 20 percent of the entire US population. That is one in five persons in the US will be collecting social security. The same report projects 26 percent of the population will not be old enough to contribute to paying for it in taxes.

The time to address the issue is now and we need bold action. We need our leaders to do something totally different: lead. It is not an easy dilemma but there are three basic options. The first is to raise taxes. The second is to de-fund other programs and shift the money to the social security budget line item. The third is to abolish the program.

I favor the third option. I do not believe the federal government should offer social security. However, the federal government must honor promises made to the citizens. Every year around my birthday, I get that nice letter from the Social Security Administration informing me of how much money I contributed to the fund and what my payout will be when I retire. The information comes from my social security number.

Why not send me a check for everything I contributed now? The government can send me one lump sum and let me worry about my retirement planning. I know people will point to the tremendous strain on the budget this idea will cause but we can figure out a way off portions of the population over time until everyone gets his or her money back.

People in the country will then have more disposable income because the FICA taxes would go away. Illegal immigrants will not benefit from this program, nor should they. There will be less federal government in our lives, which is a good thing. Less federal government means more personal liberty.