Bernie's Negative Campaign?

As the Democratic primary moves to New York, Bernie Sanders would like to debate Hillary Clinton to make sure their differences are well defined, if he has any hope of trying to steal more of Hillary's momentum - which would be a major accomplishment in her home state.

This is proving difficult, as Hillary for America Chief Strategist Joel Berenson explains to CNN's Kate Bolduan:

Apparently, Bernie has been a naughty boy.  In the latest attempt to lobotomize Democrat voters, Berenson references a Washington Post article claiming that Sanders' campaign was poll testing negative ads.  Except that they weren't, not really.  Quoting the article:

"His advisers, spoiling for a brawl, have commissioned polls to show which contrasts with Clinton - from Wall Street to fracking - could do the most damage to her at home."

Berenson uses this as an excuse to chastise Sanders as if he is puerile little toddler:

"Let's see the tone of the campaign he wants to run, before we start talking about any other questions... if he goes back to the kind of tone he says he was going to set early on - if he does that, we'll talk about debates. "

For those people who really despise the culture that has arisen in the past couple of decades - everyone getting trophies, playing sports with no points so no one loses, college kids whining about every little thing that offends their fragile sensibilites - I point you to Joel Berenson and Clinton's campaign as an example of where that mindset might be fostered.

The Democratic primaries have been the friendliest in decades, mostly because of Bernie. Hillary's campaign against Obama in 2008 showed she has no problem going negative. But that poses a problem against Bernie Sanders, because there is really very little to go negative on.  So little, in fact, that they had to go back 30 years for quotes on Cuba and the Sandinistas.  So little that they have tried several times to hint, with a wink, at Sanders as racist, despite him having a big head start on race relations activism in Chicago in the early 60's. So little that the strategy has become the invention of a narrative with Bernie as a negative campaigner. Does not matter if it is true.  Perception is reality, especially in politics. So Bernie not only magically becomes a negative campaigner, but one who needs to be chastised by Joel Berenson of the Clinton campaign for being so. This strategy says more about Hillary than it does about Bernie.

The reality is that Sanders' momentum has been growing at the same time Clinton's negative ratings have been increasing.  And the last thing Clinton needs is Sanders taking a big chunk of her home state's pledged delegates.  If he gets much closer, the unpledged delegates (superdelegates) start becoming part of the conversation.  Sanders, for his part, needs to make a big showing in New York and, with it being Clinton's home state, he needs to find as many issues as possible to contrast himself.  So he polls the issues that are most important to New Yorkers to figure out where Clinton is most vulnerable.  That's simple politics, that's not negative campaigning.  This is the same Washington Post that ran an editorial accusing Sanders of running a "fiction-filled campaign," that Clinton's team redistributed ahead of the New Hampshire primary.  But Sanders is negative, and should sit in a corner without his dinner and think about what he has done.  Bad boy.

Clinton better be careful.  New York is home to high taxation (especially New York City) and Wall Street, where a big chunk of her funding comes from. The frustration over the economy is most starkly represented there, from both sides of the spectrum.  There is potential for Hillary to do as much damage to herself as Bernie might do.  Having an adviser give a verbal spanking to one's opponent. particularly one who does not deserve it, could come back to bite later on. 

Air Force Attacks Christianity?

The United States military spends the majority of its time and resources fighting to ensure freedoms in this country are not endangered by any outside forces.  Almost all military personnel would likely agree that this freedom includes those that they themselves may not agree with, but will protect anyway, because that is what America is about.  If you attack one freedom, you potentially attack the others as well.  They may not like something you do, but they will protect your right to do it, and die in the process, if necessary.

In a February 26, 2016 Raw Story article, Bethania Palma Markus discusses reactions by the conservative "non-partisan" foundation, Judicial Watch, to a "Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] request in October, seeking records about 'Earth-based worship' for the 2013/2014 academic year..." at The United States Air Force Academy.

"The Air Force Academy leadership is attacking traditional Chrisitian beliefs, but will fund witchcraft and magick?" Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Christian website WND.  "These records show the misplaced priorities in the Air Force and why traditional Christians increasingly feel unwelcome in the Air Force Academy."

That quote is the result of the following information:

• "Judicial Watch got documents showing the Academy paid $260 for two cadets to attend the Beltania Festival, an Earth-centered celebration in Colorado."

• "The academy also spent $120 for four cadets to attend the Denver Witches Ball."

• "The kicker here seems to be that in 2013, the Academy made the phrase "so help me God" optional in its cadet oath."

Why is it that every act involving religion that does not put Christianity front and center constitute an attack on Christianity?  And Christian attitudes, when they do allow for the far-fetched possibility that other religions may exist in the world, will embody the implication that those other religions are okay, as long as Christianity is the most important one, and the only one that is looked to on important matters, especially legal and political.  It is extremely needy, considering that it is based on a construct that is unprovable - hence the "faith."

The article goes on:

"In December, the academy said its cadets have the right to observe any faith, or no faith at all, after they received complaints about football players praying in the end zone."

"The United States Air Force Academy places a high value on the rights of its members to observe the tenets of their respective religion or to observe no religion at all," the academy said in a statement.  "The United States Air Force Academy will continue to reaffirm to cadets that all Airmen are free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all.  The players may confidently practice their own beliefs without pressure to participate in the practices of others."

So, this is not really about Christianity being attacked, so much as the academy helping a few students participate in religious events that the Academy didn't provide for on campus. Which may pique curiosity:  What do they provide for?

At the Cadet Chapel, the academy offers:

Air Force Academy Worship

Catholic Program

During the academic year (August through May) Catholic Masses are celebrated weedays (except Friday and academic holidays) and Sunday.  Roman Catholic holy days are celebrated during the academic year.

Protestant Program

Protestant worship services are held every Sunday throughout the academic year (August through May) with special worship opportunities on holy days. Worship includes traditional and contemporary services.  During the academic year Holy Communion will be offered on the first Sunday of each month at the traditional service.

Jewish Program

The Jewish Chapel offers a wide range of religious services and education for Jewish cadets and military members.  Friday night Sabbath services are held weekly followed by a kosher dinner.  Specific Jewish holy days are celebrated in conjunction with the Jewish Community of Colorado Springs.  Services and meals are open to all regardless of religious affiliation.

Muslim Program

The Islamic Chapel offers a wide range of religious services and education for cadets, staff and families.  Noon "Zuhur" Prayers, Weekly Friday "Jumu'ah" Prayers and luncheons are conducted every Friday.  Islamic holy days, including the month of Ramadan, are celebrated with daily services and prayers.  Services and meals are open to all regardless of religious affiliation.

Buddhist Program

Buddhist services are held every Sunday and Thursday during the academic year, with additional services on dates of special significance.

They also offer Community Center Chapel Programs.  

This country was founded by colonists wanting freedom  and independence from King George and Great Britain.  Despite incorrect proclamations that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, religious freedom was a major factor in this desire.  The factor was so important to them, that they wrote into the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Many of the founders were Christians, many were deists, but the majority of them agreed that free exercise of religion means no definition or establishment of official religion, and that the 1st Amendment served as a "wall of separation between the Church and the State."

The Air Force Academy provides education to cadets seeking to join the Air Force, and prepares them to enter service ready to defend the country and the Constitution it is founded on. So providing a few cadets the ability to attend religious events that the campus does not explicitly provide or host on its own is the very embodiment of religious freedom. And doing so reinforces what those same cadets will be fighting to protect once they graduate from the academy.  Christians may make up the largest block of cadets, but the academy makes sure that they provide for the majority of the biggest religions on campus and, if necessary, they will provide means of access for any that aren't represented officially.

Freedom could not be more perfectly represented.

Bernie Hates You

You know you are having too much success with what you are doing if a bunch of billionaire hedge funders create a new SuperPAC just so they can run attack ads on you.

So this new Person (remember, corporations are people too...), named Future 45 (I do not know why that has not made the list of most popular baby names), has created an ad.  It's not a particularly good one:

                   

BUT it does hit a bunch of trigger words that people think make it a good ad:

• STAGNATING incomes
• PRICES RISING
• WEAK ECONOMY

ergo, Bernie wants

• To raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, which HURTS SMALL BUSINESS
• HIGHER TAXES on banks and corporations (read: "The Good Guys aka Job Creators") that would KILL JOBS
• FREE (read: "Takers") college and health care for all, paid for by RAISING TAXES (verified in the ad by playing the first four (detail-less) seconds of a minute long detailed answer to a question)

Translation: Bernie wants to hurt Small Business and kill jobs.  Bernie wants to hurt people.  Bernie hates people.  Bernie hates YOU.  Why would you ever vote for someone that HATES YOU? Don't vote for Bernie.

The sober reality:

• $15/hr may be a bit high, but at least tie the minimum wage to inflation or the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  So $12-13/hr.  It's called a Cost Of Living Adjustment, (COLA).  We are supposed to be keeping up with the COL, but the COL left wages behind a long time ago.

• Higher taxes on banks and corporations Do.Not.Kill.Jobs.  We are primarily a consumer-based economy.  If people buy more (because they have more money to do so, see Minimum Wage above), companies will try to produce more to keep up with demand, and hire more people, as needed, to do so.  Not complicated, really.

• Consumers are the job creators, not corporations, no matter what those CEOs are espousing from the deck of their 200-foot yachts.  Higher taxes do not kill jobs any more than lower taxes increase them.  Lower taxes only increases corporations' bottom lines, which maintains or increases their P/E ratio, which maintains or raises stock values.  They are not going to screw with that by hiring more people just because they got tax breaks.  Hiring statistics going back decades have proven this, no matter which party the president has been in.  Productivity was through the roof back in the days of the 80-90% tax rates.  The economy was booming, and families still made a decent income.  This fallacy of "higher taxes kills jobs" has been way overplayed, for a very long time, despite evidence to the contrary, yet it is always presented as innovative thinking.

• Free College:  I do not agree with this at face value.  If it is going to be done at all, it should be merit-based.  Tax payers should not be paying for substandard students.  If you get good grades, then tax payer funded college that educates students so they can contribute to the country's economy might be worth it.  But it should be renewable annually.  A student's first year is covered.  If they get good grades, they get a second year.  And then a third, and so on.  But if their grades are crap?  They have to pay for the next year - and if they bring their grades up, they can file for reimbursement of costs.  College is an investment.  If students can not prove they are worth the investment with solid effort, they do not deserve it.  I also think students should have to contribute to an area of the economy that the country lacks, that their degree can contribute to.  We pay for your college?  You can still hunt for the job you want, but you help us out in this area part-time for a year or two.  And employers are not allowed to hold that requirement against a prospective employee.

• Health Care:  Bernie wants Medicare for all.  The following information is taken directly from Bernie's campaign site:

         The typical family earning $50,000 per year:

                  •  Now pays an average of $4,955 in premiums

                  •  Another $1,318 in deductibles for care that is not covered

                  •  And the covered costs aren't covered until the deductible is met.

         The same family would only pay $466 annually into the Medicare for all program

         Businesses would save more than $9,400 per year, from an average cost per worker 

         of $12,591 to just $3,100.

         Medicare for all would be paid for with:

                  •  2.2 % health care premium (per rules for federal income taxes)

                  •  6.2 % payroll tax on employers (the $3,100 mentioned above)

                  •  Estate tax on wealthiest 1%

                  •  Reducing outlays for taxpayer-supported health care expenditures

          So everyone would be covered, taxes raised a little bit, but insurance premiums and 

         deductibles eliminated, leaving families with an extra $6,000-ish dollars per year in 

         their pockets on average.  And that would be BAD.  'Cause Bernie hates people.

         Bernie hates YOU.

And remember, these people are not attacking feasibility.  They are attacking intentions.  So whatever you agree or disagree with, Bernie's intentions at least seem to be looking out for everyone's financial well-being.  Whether it can be done is a whole other debate.

What are your intentions, Future - ahem - Mr. 45?  Whatever the hell your name is.

Why are the Republicans Fighting an Already Lost Battle?

I've discussed this in a Facebook thread to a smaller degree, but this bears spelling out.  Republicans know exactly why they are willing to keep the govt. shut down - they're just not willing to state the reality, for not wanting to highlight exactly how resentful they are.  So here's both parties in a nutshell:

After a pain-in-the-rear fight to pass the stimulus package (just shy of a supermajority, Republicans were no obstacle, despite the finger pointing.  This fight was entirely within the Democratic party), Obama couldn't deal with another major fight against his own people.  So when the first version of the health care bill was being discussed, and he was getting resistance from Dems once again, Obama pushed Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to use a plan backed by Republicans in the late 1980s.  

Attempting to address the desire of universal health care, a conservative think-tank called the Heritage Foundation wrote a universal health care plan that covered two main areas:  First, treating employer-provided plans and individual plans equally under the tax code.  Second was called the "Health Care Social Contract."  It was, in effect, an individual mandate on heads of households to purchase basic coverage with catastrophic stop-loss provisions for a family's total health cost expenditure.  This is a major difference between then and now, where the mandate requires purchasing comprehensive coverage.  Mitt Romney used this exact plan as the basis for Massachusetts' universal health care system.  The Heritage Foundation later removed this mandate because it had been deemed "unconstitutional."  Yes, even back then, it was unconstitutional.  And because they couldn't find a legal workaround for it, it was simply removed.  They even explained this to Mitt Romney when he was trying to set up Massachusetts' plan, but state constitutions are easier to deal with than the federal.  In the early years, RomneyCare was a success, which is why he had little room to debate against ObamaCare during the 2012 election debates.

Obama was essentially trying to counter the resistance of Democrats in Congress to his bill by appealing to moderate Republicans - that they could support his bill because they had before when it was originally introduced.  It didn't work, and Reid and Pelosi had to use every House and Senate process maneuver in the book to prevent discussion (cloture motions) or amendments.  This was the moment of Pelosi's now infamous statement that "we have to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it."  The bill got pushed through Congress with no one having had a chance to read it.  And the brunt of the debate from Republicans, and some Democrats, was the disputed constitutionality of the mandate.  The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the mandate, despite the govt. citing the Heritage Foundation's original use of it as a defense (they chose to ignore that even the HF removed it on constitutionality grounds).  Obviously this did not work.

Throughout this time,  Obama himself misled everyone about the individual mandate. He called it a "fee" for two years, because the House pointed out that it couldn't be a "tax" - any new tax is required by law to originate in the House of Representatives. So it was a fee, not a tax, a fee, over and over again a FEE. But then he got to the Supreme Court, who threw out his Commerce Clause argument for a fee on Day 1, essentially showing their hand, that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. On Day 2, it was already widely known that the Supremes were debating whether to throw out the IM alone, or throw out the bill altogether. In a last ditch effort, the govt. started calling it a tax - the only argument left that might keep the Supremes from possibly throwing the entire bill out. Even this was a broken rule - the Supreme Court is supposed to rule, by law, only on the arguments presented.  Affirmative and Negative are NOT permitted to change the argument, either in scope or in parameters.  So allowing the change to a "tax" was a direct violation by the court in itself.  Everyone voted on party lines, except John Roberts who, in the deciding vote, called it a constitutionally legal tax. He knew then he was wrong, because he admitted it. In his opinion he said straight up that the tax doesn't conform to any tax we have on the books.  He knew that all new taxes are required to originate in the House, yet he seemed to be "inventing" a nonexistent new tax to approve - something the Supreme Court is expressly forbidden from doing.  He couldn't even say WHY it was constitutional (because it wasn't), but passed it anyway. Why? The appearance of bipartisanship.  Because he knew Obama's second term was going to have a lot of third-rail issues before the court that would be voted on party lines (traditional swing vote Anthony Kennedy trends socially toward the right), giving the Democrats this faux "win" absolves him of the partisan label that would normally ensue when he's the deciding vote on several issues that may very well swing conservative.  Many believed this to be one of the most politically savvy maneuvers in the history of American government, but he literally abdicated his legal responsibility to do so.  So the deftness being praised is somewhat of a dubious honor.

Implementing the law in 2014 was three-fold:  One, Obama would never have risked his re-election chances implementing a law that could very easily backfire on him.  Two, they had to pre-charge to get some money into the system before people began receiving benefits.  Three, it gives them two years to get enough people into the system to make it nearly impossible to repeal at a later date, especially if Dems were to lose the 2016 elections.

Republicans' spite in all this is borne of a few elements that stick in their craw.  First is the notion that a plan they showed some minor support for 20 years ago, that was shot down by Democrats, magically became a good bill when Democrats decided to use it.  Second was the manner with which it was rammed through Congress (with Pelosi's statement being particularly galling).  Third was the games Obama was playing with the "fee."  Fourth was the fact that the Supremes let him get away with games, and breaking their own rules to do so.  Fifth was the unconscionable betrayal of John Roberts.  Put this all together, and you simply have Republican leadership, pushed in the back by the Tea Party, seeing fraud in almost every aspect of this law.  And they would be right - this is one of the greater frauds in the history of American government.  But they conveniently forget that they too use every fraudulent way they can think of to get what they want.  So the real deal here is that they lost - in every conceivable way, and they simply can't process that reality.  They can't even articulate just how affronted they are in losing a battle that was rife with fraud on so many levels.  The only thing they have left is spite.  And that they think they are coming from a position of power shows just how weak they really are.

What has also been lost in all this is that RomneyCare, despite it's early success, has become a fiscal failure.  So many people went off the employer-provided plans in favor of the exchange plans, that the state of Massachusetts is hemorrhaging red ink.  Their system has turned into one of the great budget busters in this country.  ObamaCare attempted to correct for this, but missed out on a key element (which tends to happen when you rush complex issues through without proper planning).  Employers are either downsizing to be able to not have to offer anything, and they have downgraded full-time workers to part-time - specifically 29.5 hours per week, as 30 is considered full-time.  I point this out because most full-time employees actually work close to 40 hours per week, not 30.  So in dropping them to 29.5, companies aren't just absolving themselves of having to provide health care, they are cutting wages by 25%.  How many people do you think can absorb a 25% loss in pay?  And depending on your wage, many people may just drop below the threshold for food stamps or other government programs.  So imagine how successful this is going to be when more than just health care could be affected.  And in all this, millions of people will still be without health care, which was the whole point of this charade.  And as for the blame game, the bill is LAW.  There's no way Republicans don't suffer heavily for this.  "Winning" is not possible.  Good or bad, this is what health care is going to be.  Instead of holding up the entire economy, we need to make sure the system works as best it can.  You can make modifications as needed.  But it's the job of Congress to pass budgets so this country can run.  320 million people are more important than a few hundred.

About the McBudget...

Everyone has likely had a minimum wage job.  It's usually the first couple of jobs you get, and part-time.  If you're a teenager, it usually pays for a car payment, or the requisite insurance, or the extras in life (certain clothes, expensive shoes, game systems, etc.) that your parents have deemed you old enough to provide for yourself.  But it is usually a transition to better jobs with a little bit better pay, as you gain experience and skills.  McDonald's has always been the launching pad for teens 14 years old and up to have a job and learn some skills.  If those teens continue into college and earn degrees, they usually move out of McDonald's and into much higher paying jobs/careers.  If they stay at McDonald's, they can move up into management ranks and beyond.  McDonald's, if nothing else, has long had a reputation for promoting from within, and helping the beginners make careers out of the company.

Recently, there has been a push to increase the minimum wage again, preferably with a tie to the cost of living.  It has been estimated that, if the MW had been tied to inflation, it would be roughly $10.40/hr now.  If it had been tied to the cost of living, it would be $12 and change.  Opponents of a MW hike have claimed that it would cost people jobs.  Those in favor have claimed that unemployment is high because people can't afford to purchase things, and THAT is what drives unemployment.  They are both right.

McDonald's, as one of the major national employers of MW workers (as well as all other restaurant companies, WalMart, etc), is resisting this MW hike.  In partnership with VISA, they issued a response, in the form of a living budget:

Okay, most people have seen this.  It lays out estimated costs for various bills, and calculates what they believe to be the average person's cost of living.  But this is where McDonald's goes off the rails, obviously out of touch with reality.  Right from the start, they ASSUME a second job.  Right there is the big red flag:  If you want to be able to pay bills, DO NOT count on us.  The second job also implies that you will likely never get better than part-time hours at McDonald's.  Look, most people can do the MW thing if they get their hours, but they'd like it to be at one place, if at all possible.  That's clearly not possible here.  For anyone with children, holding down two jobs is tough, especially when the children are younger.  This estimate also appears to disregard payroll and Social Security taxes, which would lower the overall income estimate.  But of all the things wrong in this budget, taxes are but a blip.

Another area where they falter is in the area of health insurance.  First, the main reason they keep people as part-time status is to not have to provide benefits.  Many restaurants don't provide health insurance at all, except for full-time management.  Second, as laid out in a September 2010 article in Forbes, $20 a month for the people who do get insurance isn't even in the ball park of realistic.  In 2010, they were paying an average of $14 per WEEK.  Imagine that cost now, since the last several premium hikes over the past few years - it's more likely in the $125-150 range, if not more.  And, as the article points out, the health coverage they have been getting is atrocious in quality.  They are better off rejecting coverage and funding a health care savings plan, or  finding something on their own - which will undoubtedly cost much more than $20 per month.

This budget also underestimates the cost of heat.  Anyone living up north knows there's no such thing as a $50 heating bill, especially during the peak months of December to February, where the heat costs can be up to triple that amount or more, depending on the type of housing you live in.  See, the poor usually live in older apartment buildings and homes that have poor insulation.  So it's not unusual to have the heat running 24-7 in the dead of winter, jacking up heating bills.  It also underestimates electric, especially in the south, where air conditioning is often run 24-7, especially in the peak May-September heat months.  And in Florida, where I am from, gas is rare.  Almost all homes are run on electricity, save for the individual home owner who plants a gas tank in his yard and supplies it himself.  So there's no such thing as a $90 electric bill.

And this budget also simply disregards things like, well... groceries.  Or gasoline for the car.  Or clothing expenses.  And it obviously assumes no children, which is a big miss when you are talking about the average worker and their average 2.5 kids per family household.  But maybe McDonald's thinks that all falls into the $750 in spending money left over after putting $100 in savings.  Or maybe they think their poor workers will be on food stamps.  They would be wrong, by the way, in a two person household.  Their estimated monthly income would make them ineligible to receive benefits.  The chances increase with a child, as the minimum requirement goes up for every household member, but that is a huge assumption to make. 

McDonald's, in this attempt to teach poor people how to be fiscally efficient with their poorness, generally shot itself in the foot.  Then they shot it again when they decided to try forcing employees to take their paycheck in the form of a re-loadable VISA debit card, neglecting to tell them that VISA charges fees for virtually everything - getting cash at an ATM, basic withdrawals, balance inquiries, online bill paying, etc.  They also neglected to mention that McDonald's corporate gets a hefty payment from VISA to implement these cards, as most companies do for the business they provide to VISA.

Minimum wage opponents are correct that raising the MW would cost some jobs. Many employers are not willing to wait out the short term effect of higher payroll, for the long term effect that MW advocates are also correct about:  if people can generally make more money, they will spend more on average, revenues will climb, and employment will subsequently rise.  Generally, it's the conservatives who are opposing the MW hike, because they would rather keep their money in the short term, even if they have to cut payroll to do it - so feel free to raise the wage.  But keeping their costs low is the priority, even if they short-sightedly cost themselves revenues from the lack of purchasing power of the average consumer.  Advocates are largely from the liberals and civil rights groups who advocate for the poor.  There is a genuine concern for the welfare of the lower income families in this faction, but there's also a political and fiscal underbelly to it, in the form of union advocates, who are major pushers for the hike.  Why?  Because wages in union collective bargaining agreements are often tied to the MW.  Raise the MW by $3-5 per hour, and the well-paid union worker gets a raise too.  So the politiking surrounding a MW increase very often tosses aside the people most affected by it - the working poor, who need the ability to provide a living for themselves and their families.  For all the good qualities that McDonald's has, they've faltered in a pretty important area, and it highlights just how hard the working poor have it. And considering that adding the cost of a hike to consumer prices causes only a minimal increase in overall spending costs per consumer (1.2% on average), it should be given serious consideration.  We are falling behind in so many areas - this should not be one of them.  Let people have a living wage, the rest of the economy may just follow suit.

Hacker Awareness is Everyone's Responsibility

I've been seeing a lot of news lately about identity theft, which continues to increase on a global scale, and protection of private information, increasingly from the federal government.  The feds are now demanding user passwords from web firms.  If they can't get them the legal way, and want them bad enough, they will simply hack them.  The NSA, FBI and CIA all utilize hackers  The government has the resources to do whatever it wants, but there are hackers everywhere that do the very same thing.  Hacking passwords is a major security concern that many people do not fully respect.  And they should, because that's how your identity is often stolen.  So I thouht I'd pass on a few tips that people can utilize very easily.  The first tip involves protecting yourself against keyloggers, which record everysingle keystroke you make.  No matter if they are hardware devices or software programs, here's a great tip:

Use ASCII codes. 

Most people don't know this, but everything in computers is binary - 1s and 0s.  Each character is a byte, each byte is 8 bits, each bit is a 1 or 0 (1 = "ON" and 0 = "OFF").  For example, each byte is between 00000000 and 11111111.  Each bit (right to left) from the first bit to the eighth has a value (128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1).  Notice the value doubles itself with each bit.  For every "1" in the byte, you take the corresponding place value and add it together - "0" means that particular bit has no value and is left alone.  The sum is the ASCII code for a corresponding character.  Every character a computer uses is calculated this way - it is the core principle of binary coding.  For example, my name begins with the letter "E."  In binary, "E" looks like this:  01000101. 

                                                      (128  64  32  16   8   4   2  1)
                                                          0     1    0    0   0   1   0  1

The corresponding values for the 1s are 64, 4, 1.  Add them and you get 69.  So the ASCII code for the letter "E" is 69.  You access the ASCII codes using the ALT key.  Try it.  Press ALT-69, and you get "E."  (By the way, you can do a search for "ASCII tables," or "ALT codes" to find web pages that have the chart for all the characters.)  But "E" is on the keyboard, and that's too easy.  So if I wanted to make it tougher to crack, I could use the ASCII code for "É."  In binary, "É" looks like this:  10010000.

                                                      (128  64  32  16   8   4   2   1)
                                                          1     0    0    1   0   0   0   0

The corresponding values for the 1s are 128, 16.  Add them and you get 144.  So the ASCII code for the character "É" is 144.  So to protect my self better, I wouldn't type Eric - I would instead type Éric, using (ALT-144)ric.

Your keyboard is simply a set of keys that are shortcuts to the sum-values that correspond to the ASCII codes for the characters printed on the keys (to save you from having to type in binary).  Keyloggers are great for the keyboard characters.  But if, for example, I type my name this way: (ALT-69)RIC, instead of (E)RIC, the keylogger will see that I pressed the ALT, the 6, and the 9, but it doesn't know if I pressed them together or separately, and some loggers (typically the software kind) will only record the ALT key and miss the 6 and 9 because they were pressed during the main keystoke, the ALT key.  So using ASCII command characters - even just one - makes hacking your passwords exponentially harder, because hackers typically use the main set of keybord characters, under the (correct) assumption that most people don't know how to input ALT codes.  Your password can still be hacked, but it will take much longer - and hackers are like burglars, in the sense that speed is everything.  The longer it takes, the more likely they'll give up before they crack it.

Home Wireless Routers

Most of us use wireless in our homes.  And hackers love to drive through neighborhoods, scanning for wireless networks they can hack.  There are a couple of ways to counter this, and both are very simple:

 

1) Disable your SSID.  Every router has one.  It's the ID that is broadcast from the router into the air, so you can find your router and connect to it, by simply clicking on it.  But you can also input the SSID manually.  Just give it a simple name that's easy to remember.  Once you disable the SSID broadcast, your router is still present, but now it is invisible, outsiders can't see it as an available network.  Most of the time, you only connect to your router the first time, then your computer does it automatically every time thereafter.  So this is a nice little security step that is minimally taxing to the user.

 

2) If you are not a fan of coming up with a name for your router, or disabling the SSID, try this:  most routers have a generic name out of the box, and it usually contains the brand name, like Linksys-something, or Netgear-something, D-Link-something, etc.  If your router is a Linksys, rename it Netgear, or D-Link, or Buffalo.  If it's a Netgear, rename it Linksys, and so on.  Hackers usually have a set of base command protocols for each brand of router.  If you change the SSID's name to a different brand, the hacker will waste a lot of time using the wrong protocols to get in.  Remember, you can't totally beat them, but you can slow them down trememndously, and that will increase the chances of them leaving yours alone.

 

3) If your router gives you the option between WEP and WPA or WPA-2 passwords, always choose WPA or WPA-2.  WEPs are the most easily hacked, as they are the most generic in design and application.  Use them ONLY if you have no other option (in which case, your router is likely older, and should be replaced). And remember, you can use the occasional ASCII character to throw off the hackers to make it that much more time consuming, which is the goal.

 

These are simple measures (sorry about the quick binary tutorial, but I tried to keep it short and easy to understand), and everyone should be proactive in protecting their information from intruders, be it the feds, the professional hacker, or the recreational hacking 10 year old who's at home bored while Mom and Dad are out on date night.  It's your information and your life.  Look after it.

The Postal Service, Victim of the Long Con of Congress

The United States Postal Service has long been the black sheep of the federal government.  They were designed to operate autonomously, yet their ability to do so has always been at the behest of Congress.  Now the USPS is teetering towards bankruptcy, and they need to curb costs.  They don't want to have to cut services, but Congress is pushing hard to eliminate door-door service altogether, and will vote on it Wednesday.  I don't have a problem with that. Door-to-door service is expensive, from an hourly wage standpoint - curbside and cluster boxes are the efficient way to go.  But this move will cost a lot of mail carriers their jobs.  I have a couple of friends that do that very job, so I am now concerned for their job security, as the job market is tough, and has been for several years now.

But setting aside my personal feelings, I will now fill you in on something very few people even know about (I didn't know about it until one of my USPS friends filled me in):

In 2006, Congress passed the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act, or PAEA.  This act mandated forced the USPS to PRE-fund a 75-year liability for future retiree health benefits.  That's right, folks.  At 75 years, they are not just funding future retirees' benefits - they are funding people who will not have even been born for the next 10-15 years.  What's worse, current employees pay for their own health benefits.  So do retirees, minus whatever Medicare covers.  So there is no such thing as a "health care benefit" for current employees or retirees.  And pre-funding anything means employees have to pay out more from their paychecks.  So this mandate basically amounts to an agency-wide pay cut to fund something they have no access to.  And this is all paid into the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), which means - you guessed it - they are funding all federal employees from every other agency, who will have access to these benefits, while the people paying for it have no access.  And they are the only employees in the country that have been required to do this.

This pre-funding amounts to roughly $5 billion per year, and it accounts for about 70 percent of the USPS' net deficit for the last five years (through FY 2012).  Keep in mind, this is the only federal agency that generates a revenue stream, while consuming exactly zero tax payer dollars.  Postage and package delivery services, as well as postal merchandise products, are their revenue stream.  Many people, including much of Congress, have seriously discussed privatizing the USPS, portraying it to be an expensive, unprofitable relic of times gone by - a dinosaur, that needs to be out of the federal system.  But while mail service has decreased about 25 percent since 2006, when the PAEA was enacted, the biggest improvement in revenues in recent years has been from becoming more competitive in package delivery services.  So one has to wonder why the entirety of the USPS is being deemed  an unprofitable relic that needs to be shut down.  After all, if this kind of service is so unprofitable, why are so many of our congressmen so heavily invested in UPS, FedEx, and DHL?  Wait a minute...

And here is where I start to twitch:  The USPS fund in the FERS had about $46 billion total.  Just recently, the Treasury Department took money yet again from the FERS - and included the USPS fund - to pay down debt.  So the USPS is near bankruptcy, yet they can be pilfered by the Treasury Department?  And, naturally, the loss of those funds changes weakens the financial position of the USPS, making them look less fiscally stable than they already are.  All this, and Congress wants to get rid of the USPS, or privatize it, when they are the biggest reason the USPS is in the position they are.  And Congress has repeatedly refused to return the surplus payments to the USPS - meanwhile the agency has had to close thousands of post offices, mail sorting facilities, lower service standards, and delay mail delivery, including eliminating Saturday delivery beginning in August of this year.  

Only our government would force an agency it deems "failing" to over pay into a system it has no access to, while simulatneously strategizing the best way to get rid of the agency.  I wonder what happens to all the pre-funded payments into the FERS for "future federal employees," who won't ever exist once the federal agency is dissolved...?