The successful launch of the space shuttle Atlantis on Monday marks the beginning of the end of the American space shuttle program. The final seven missions are to be dedicated almost entirely to transporting spare parts to the International Space Station. When shuttle Discovery returns from space next September, Americas ability to put men and women into space will be over for the foreseeable future. NASA’s Constellation program, the successor to the space shuttle, faces critical problems and will not be operational until at least 2015.

During this time, we’re going to be completely dependent on Russia to get American astronauts into space. International cooperation is a fine thing, but it’s more than a little disturbing to think that as of 2011 the U.S. will have the same access to the Space Station that we built as does Brazil or Mozambique.

NASA’s “big plan” is to purchase seats on Russian Soyuz rockets for the next few years in order to keep an American presence in space until the completion of the Constellation program. Russia has been giving tourists rides into space for a couple of years. Computer software executive Charles Simonyi has paid Russia $25 million a trip for two trips to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz rockets. Russia’s space agency chief has now said there is no more room for space tourists, likely because they are going to get a better deal from the American taxpayer. Apparently due to inflation it will cost the United States a bit more than $25 million for the same ride.

In May of this year, Alexei Krasnoy, director of manned flight programs at Roscosmos told the Novasti news agency, “We have reached an agreement with NASA to increase the price for a single seat on Soyuz space craft for US astronauts traveling to the ISS to $51 million.”

This is simply really bad planning on the part of our government. When the decision was made by the Bush Administration in 2004 that we would discontinue the shuttle program, provisions should have been made to keep the shuttle flying until a replacement had been fully developed instead of relying on ‘allies’.

There are voices that warned us of potential trouble ahead. In an E-mail that was leaked to the Orlando Sentinel in August of 2008, NASA administrator Michael Griffin stated “My guess is that there is going to be a lengthy period with no U.S. crew on the ISS after 2011.”

He also added that Russia’s Federal Space Agency could operate the $100 billion space station without the U.S. “Practically speaking, the Russians can sustain ISS without the U.S. crew… We need them, they do not ‘need’ us.”

Imagine there is some political ‘falling out’ between Russia and the United States sometime in the next couple of years. There will be nothing in the world stopping them from telling us that we are no longer welcome to ride on their rockets. America will have carried most of the weight in building this $100 billion station and then simply abandoned it due to a lack of forward thinking and planning.

The newest shuttle in the fleet is Endeavor, which is 17 years old. The other two, Atlantis and Discovery, are 24 and 25 years old respectively. We should keep Endeavor flying one or two missions a year to ensure that America maintains a presence in space. It would also give the United States a certain amount of leverage in dealing with nations who MAY, but most likely DO NOT have the best interests of the United States in mind.

I’m not holding my breath for Barack Obama to fix this lack of planning though.  He is already begining to talk about domestic spending cuts next year and I’ve got a sneaky suspicion that NASA is going to be one of the things he will be tempted to cut.  You can bet those cuts will not come from any of the social programs.

Cross posted at American Logic

Just a few thought on the mid-term elections that are now just over a year away.  In a recent Associated Press poll, only 28% of respondents said that they argeed with the way congress is handling the issues.  This would seem to indicate that the other 72% of Americans either do not trust or have a severe lack of confidence in the current members of congress.  Their approval numbers are roughly the same as George W. Bush’s when he left office in January of this year.  Clearly, it’s time for some more CHANGE, and I think it’s time we ask ourselves what kind of people we want representing us in Washington D.C.   

Currently, of the 100 Senators in Washington, 54 of them are lawyers.  In the House of Representatives the percentage is not quite as high but there are still 162 members or 36%, who are law school graduates.  While I recognize the necessity of lawyers in society, the argument can be made that they should not make up the majority of our government.  I believe this to be contrary to the intentions of the founders of our nation when they sought to provide “checks and balances” in all areas of government.  James Madison wrote about preventing the tyranny by a government in the same hands in Federalist  paper #47.

 “ No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the  authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that . . . the accumulation of  all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one,  a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be  pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Today, lawyers make up roughly one half of 1% of the total population, yet the judiciary, the legislative and the executive branches of the United States government are all dominated by members of the bar association.  We’ve been electing lawyers to Congress for the last 30 or 40 years, and now when legislative bills are written there is such a degree of complexity and are so extensive that few people other than a lawyer can wade through all the legal jargon and understand them.  I think we may be forgiven for believing that this is perhaps intentional, enabling congress to sneak things past the American people by using language the average American either does not understand or have the time it takes to decipher.

On Sep. 17, 2007 Rep Bruce Braley,  (D-IA)  introduced to the House of Representatives H.R. 3548 or the Plain Language in Government Communications Act.  Though this bill has yet to be taken up by the Senate it would establish plain language as the standard style for all government documents that are issued to the public.  The plain language standard would apply to any document that explains how to obtain a government benefit, a service or how to file taxes.  It covers all letters, notices, publications, forms, and instructions.  It does not however cover federal regulations or proposed laws in the United States Congress, which means it does nothing to address the manner in which bills are written.  It may come as no surprise then that Congressman Braley is a lawyer.  Prior to being elected to congress in 2006, Mr. Braley specialized in representing workers who had been injured on the job or were terminated unfairly.  In other words, he made his living by suing people.  Reminds me of another attorney turned politician who made a lot of money chasing after ambulances.  Former Senator John Edwards was a “personal injury lawyer” before getting into the racket known as politics.  Mr. Edwards claimed in his presidential campaign a few years ago that there are now “two Americas”, one for the super rich and another one for everyone else.  I don’t need to tell you which one he lives in. 

Aside from the fact that lawyers always seem to make things more complicated than they need to be,  I often have questions concerning their common sense and even their integrity.  (shocker)  We all know the story of the woman at McDonalds who spilled coffee on herself and then sued, but that is far from being an isolated incident.  In 2002 a man from New York filed another lawsuit against the same fast food chain because he became obese eating nothing but their hamburgers.  Both of these cases won in court and the plaintiffs and their lawyers were awarded millions of dollars.  The silliness does not stop there though, just ask the tobacco companies who have paid billions in lawsuits.  Regardless of your views on smoking, people should be well aware of the dangers posed by cigarettes.   There’s been a warning label printed on the side of each pack since 1966.

In the movie “Wall Street”, Gordon Gecko coined the phrase; “Greed is Good”.  The phrase could be the national motto for the legal profession because your average lawyer is the embodiment of greed.  Only a person consumed by greed would have taken the case of a woman in New York City who decided to commit suicide by laying down on the subway tracks.  She survived, sued the city and was awarded $14.1 million dollars.  Last, but not least, there is the thief from Framingham, Massachusetts who stole a car from a parking lot, drove off and crashed the car.  The thief was killed in the accident but his family sued the parking lot owner for making it too easy to steal a car from the lot.  Cases like these and many more across the country have all been made possible by attorneys obsessed with  the desire for more money and a “win at any cost” attitude.

There is a recognized need for tort reform in this country, but I submit that it will never happen as long as the majority of elected leaders are lawyers.  The Plain Language in Government Communications Act needs to be re-written to require that all congressional bills are written in simple to understand english.  It has been promoted before that a so called “Good Faith Debate” requirement be added to the bill that would require all bills be posted on the internet in plain English for a specified amount of time before they can be voted on in congress.  We’ve heard politicians give “lip service” to transparency before but have never seen actually seen it happen, and I don’t believe we ever will as long as the place is dominated by career politicians and lawyers.  Yet we Americans continue to elect these same people to represent us in the halls of congress and trust them with the future of a nation.  Maybe it’s time we began looking for a different kind of leader to do the job.

When it comes time to vote in the next election, I encourage everyone from all sides of the political spectrum to select people who do not have a law degree.   We’ve had enough of people with a “win at all cost” attitude who are willing to take whatever side or position that benefits them the most.  We need people who actually know what it’s like to make a payroll or balance a budget with limited funds.   It’s time to send some people to Washington who understand what it’s like dealing with all the regulations created by other people.  A college education is a fine thing, but maybe a person who works in a factory might be able to do a better job in congress than someone who went to Harvard or Yale. 

Some people might say that  I’ve given lawyers a bad wrap here, and maybe I have.  There are probably some very decent people in our country who just happen to practice law for a living, but I figure why take the chance?

There is an amazing opportunity for conservatives in the 2010 elections if we can determine the most effective way to capitalize on it. Election history would seem to favor the republican party next year but we are faced with a number of obstacles that must be overcome.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich was able to unite the party around a core of ideas and beliefs contained in the Contract with America, and then use that as a vehicle to win 54 seats in the house and put the republicans in control of congress for the first time in 40 years. In 2010 we only need 40 seats to take back the House of Representatives.

As we conservatives look ahead to next years election though, the situation is somewhat different than it was in 1994.  We do not have a national figure out on stage promoting a conservative agenda.  Not even Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh are promoting a positive conservative agenda.  Unless I am missing something, the only agenda we have right now is “NO”.  Opposing this administration and it’s radical policies is important but I believe we must also offer people an legitimate alternative.

 Obama’s approval numbers have been dropping but it should be noted that Americans are still not ready to embrace the republican party again either.  I believe that most Americans feel that if the republicans are returned to power they will once again resume the big spending and corrupt ways that they have demonstrated in the past.

It is perhaps a good thing that the conservative movement has no recognized leader as Americans have justifiably lost faith in candidates of both political parties. When they vote they tend to display a proclivity to select their version of the lesser of two evils, or the person they believe will do the least amount of harm. However, as has been pointed out in the past, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Conservatives want to be able to cast a vote for someone they have faith in, rather than against someone that they distrust. If you’re a conservative, the chances are pretty good that you held your nose and voted for John McCain this last election not because you liked him but because he was better than the alternative. Or perhaps you simply stayed home on election day.

 In the absence of strong conservative leadership, it falls to the general citizenry to establish a positive agenda and let our leaders know our demands. Simply being in opposition to what is currently being offered will not advance our position.  What I propose is that “We the People” begin to establish a platform that can win elections and help to bring our country back from the dangers of socialism and inevitable slide to communism that follows. In the spirit of the Contract with America, I would recommend that we shy away from controversial issues and stay with things that can appeal to reasonable people on all sides of the political battle. This can be done while still submitting ideas that will greatly affect the direction of the country.

Here is a short list of some of the proposals that I would offer:

 1.)  Bring back The Citizen Legislature Act from the Contract with America. This would have amended the Constitution and would have imposed 12-year term limits on members of the US Congress.  Sadly, it      was rejected by the U.S. House by a 227-204 vote on March 29, 1995.

When the Constitution was written, the nation’s founders expected that there would be a 50% turnover in the House of Representatives every election cycle, and for well over 100 years the turnover averaged in the 50% range as expected. In the 20th century, turnover began to decline. As power and prestige flowed to Washington during the New Deal era, fewer and fewer members of Congress wanted to leave. In 1968, congressional turnover fell to single digits for the first time ever, and it has remained very low every since.

2.) Revoke many of the privileges that members of congress have given themselves, including their private pension plans and health insurance. If the laws that they pass are good enough for us, they should be expected to play by the same rules. This would include downsizing the 89^th airlift wing that members of congress use to fly themselves around the country and around the world. Perhaps if we stop allowing these people to treat themselves like royalty they will once again remember that they are the servants of “We the People”.

 3.) Eliminate the automatic pay raises that members of congress have given themselves. The rest of the country is dealing with the real possibility of losing their jobs or having to take pay cuts. Why should members of congress continue to make more and more money. Politicians love to point out the greed and corruption in the private sector, yet they are just as guilty if not more so.

A little background on congressional pay:

The 27^th Amendment to the Constitution states: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened“.

This Amendment was originally proposed on September 25, 1789, as an article in the original Bill of Rights. It sat, un-ratified and with no expiration date and in constitutional limbo, for more than 180 years. Then, in the early 1980’s, Gregory Watson, an aide to a Texas legislator, took up the proposed amendment’s cause. From 1983 to 1992, the requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and it was declared ratified on May 7, 1992. I wonder if it’s a coincidence that three years prior to the amendment being ratified, the democrat controlled congress opted to avoid any further contentious debate on pay raises by making them automatic.

 4.) “Earmarks” need to be completely eliminated to prevent politicians from using tax payer dollars in a way that is financially beneficial to themselves. Both parties are guilty of this, but the most grievous offenses seem to be committed by the democrats. One of the latest examples of this was the money from the stimulus bill that was sent to a certain district in California for a “neighborhood redevelopment project”. I’m sure that it’s another coincidence that the Speaker of the House happens to own property in that neighborhood.

These four recommendations have all been focused on congress because it is my belief that these people, (in both parties), are one of the biggest problems that we as a nation face. Given the unrepentant and royalty attitude of Congress, we need to establish new “rules of conduct” and remind them who they work for. These are all non-partisan and non political proposals that should gain support across political party lines. It might even be fair to say that this is “change you can believe in”.

There are other issues that need to be articulated and added to a conservative platform such as an alternative to the radical energy policies proposed by this administration that endanger our security and prosperity.  Border security should be addressed in a manner that is palatable for the majority of Americans.

I hear people saying that the conservative movement needs a new leader or “another Ronald Reagan”.  Eventually that person may come along, but I believe that it the base that must guide the future of the Republican party. “We the People” must be the ones dictating the agenda and require our leaders to carry out our wishes. Democracy and freedom isn’t easy, you’ve got to want it and be willing to work for it.  People who are waiting for the “next Reagan” are looking for someone else to do the work for them and most of the time will be disappointed.

There are many really good conservative spokesman and women out there who are very good at expressing what conservatism is and what it is not, but I do not believe that they have the capacity to be leaders, or even want to be in many cases.  I believe that this battle will be won or lost by you and I as citizens defending what we believe to be right, not by some “savior” with a magic wand. I also believe that it is a battle that we MUST win. The stakes are too high not to.

 In the fall of 1964, Ronald Reagan gave a speech in support of Barry Goldwater’s bid for the presidency.  While the whole speech was a proverbial “home run” and would launch one of the greatest careers in political history, a few points such as this stand out above the rest.

 “We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.”-A Time for Choosing, October 27, 1964

 Reagan was referring to the dangers presented by Soviet communism when he made those comments but I submit that he could just as easily been speaking about the very important issues we face today.

 Throughout the summer, Americans who are fed up with government spending, public debt and the taxes that will be coming soon to pay for it all have been holding “Tea Parties” all over this country.  As near as I can tell, the government has been mocking and ignoring these protests in much the same way that the warnings from the first tea party were ignored by the British government in 1774.  The following year the first continental congress was formed and we began down the road to the revolutionary war.

What I am proposing is somewhat less drastic in it’s measures.