Similar Posts

  • |

    PDF of presentation given at Heart of the West Conference

    ByJohn Brown

    Had a delightful time delivering “Story Lessons from the Hunger Games” at the annual conference for the Utah chapter of RWA up in Park City. Especially enjoyed delivering a sweet dream telegram involving waxed chests 🙂 Here’s the PDF as promised: Story Lessons from the Hunger Games RWA 2011

    Share

  • Good Stuff! The China Study

    ByJohn Brown

    T. Colin Campbell grew up on a dairy farm, loved milk, loved meat, and started his career as a nutrition scientist thinking the cornerstone of good nutrition was high-quality animal protein—meat, milk, and eggs.

    One of his first projects was for MIT, trying to help the chicken industry. Millions of chickens were dying each year from something toxic in their feed. What was the mystery killer? Campbell was responsible for isolating and determining the structure of the chemical. Through his work, he helped discover dioxin, one of the most toxic chemicals ever found.

    After helping with that, he began work helping malnourished children in the Philippines. He wanted to find ways to help them get more protein in their diets, because, again, protein was supposed to be the cornerstone of health. Part of the project was remedying an unusually high incidence of liver cancer in children, which is normally an adult disease. At the time, they thought a lack of protein was leaving the children vulnerable to aflatoxin in their diet.

    But as they began their scientific investigation, Campbell discovered the kids who ate the most protein had the highest rates of liver cancer.

    But that just couldn’t be right.

    And then he came across a study of rats and aflatoxin. The scientists in the study administered the cancer-causing aflatoxin to all of the animals. Half of the animals were then fed a diet with 5% protein. The other half were fed a diet with 20% protein. All of the animals fed a diet with 20% protein developed liver cancer. None of the animals fed a diet with 5% protein developed the cancer.

    Again, that couldn’t be right. Protein was good for you. A respected colleague suggested surely the researchers must have mislabeled the animal cages. Campbell decided to run his own studies and find out. Back at Cornell, he and his research assistants ran the experiment multiple times and in various ways. And all of the experiments confirmed that protein promoted cancer growth. In fact, they could turn cancer growth on and off by the amount of protein they fed the animals.

    But it wasn’t all protein. It was animal-based protein. The plant-based protein didn’t promote cancer growth.

    Campbell was astounded. The findings rocked his world, but he was determined to follow the facts wherever they led. This began decades of research into diet and nutrition. The culmination was what’s called The China Study. It is the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted. And what all of his decades of research demonstrated was that “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. Even relatively small intakes of animal-based food were associated with adverse effects. People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease.”

    Campbell didn’t rest there. He sought out the findings of other researchers and clinicians. And what he found all demonstrates that “The same diet that is good for the prevention of cancer is also good for the prevention of heart disease, as well as obesity, diabetes, cataracts, macular degeneration, Alzheimer’s, cognitive dysfunction, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis and other diseases.”

    What was the diet that showed such important results? A whole food plant-based diet. It’s a diet rich in legumes, whole grains, vegetables, and fruits with little or no meat, milk, and eggs.

    Campbell has written a book for lay people like you and me that explains the science and findings called The China Study: Revised and Expanded Edition.

    The book is a fascinating masterwork of clarity. In it, he not only explains the research but also how and why various groups have tried to suppress and discredit the information.

    Campbell is not some crazy quack. He isn’t someone selling pills and supplement drinks on the internet. He has no financial interest in you believing him. He is one of the foremost researchers on nutrition, a renowned scientist at Cornell University, who has worked as a senior science adviser to the American Institute for Cancer Research, sat on government nutrition panels, and is on the advisory board of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.  

    If you or someone you love are worried about any of the following:

    • Heart disease
    • Cancer (breast, prostate, colon, liver, and others)
    • Type 1 Diabetes
    • Type 2 Diabetes
    • Erectile dysfunction
    • Multiple sclerosis
    • Cataracts
    • Macular degeneration
    • Osteoporosis
    • Alzheimer’s

    I think you will be interested in hearing what he has to report. Of course, you’ll have to make up your own mind about the evidence he provides. But I think you owe it to yourself to hear what he has to say.

    Share

  • I spent 7 days in a car with Larry Correia, International Lord of Hate, and lived to tell about it

    ByJohn Brown

    Larry-Correia
    I think this was taken when someone stole  the ILOH’s Cheetoes

    Seven days.

    San Diego, Phoenix, and a wild trip through Wyoming, around Denver, and back to Utah.

    Seven days.

    Five nights.

    In Arizona, I was told by a wild-eyed denizen of the Barnes & Noble we were signing at that my epic fantasy book was true–we are ruled by lizard people!

    Imagine how shocking it was to learn that. I mean it doesn’t have anything to do with my book, but lizard people? A hollow earth? Is the CIA in on it? I don’t think I’ve recovered yet.

    In San Diego, we rode around with Dave Farland in his old four-door sedan. A Lincoln? All I remember is that it was big and floated like a dream. After some narrow misses, Dave asked me to drive. Two big guys up front. One older, rough-looking guy being chauffeured in the back. At one point we walked to a restaurant during the day like some made man and his two goons. The restaurant was empty except for three rough characters sitting around a table on the far side. They looked at us, sized us up, then looked away. We sat at a table on our side.

    In Wyoming we drove in high winds that sent streams of snow across the highway like multitudes of slithering snakes. At one point we passed one semi that was on fire, winds howling about. About an hour later, we passed a truck driver out in the median, thigh-deep in snow, a huge knife in his hand. He was trying to saw off the frozen antlers of an elk that had been hit. I looked up at his rig as we passed and did not see anyone behind the wheel. I swear the thing was rolling slowly down the highway, unmanned.

    On the way back from Denver, we rode along a wintery, icy highway with trucks and cars littering the sides. Larry white-knuckled the steering wheel, but we made it. Two big guys, one 6’4″ the other 6’2″, in a tiny Ford Focus.

    Did the very road fear the Lord of Hate? I cannot tell.

    On this trip, Larry, that man of hate, brought a bag of Walmart beef jerky that smelled like, well, a particular kind of flatulence. What kind of person does that to beef? But we ate it. Because you do such things on epic journeys.

    Now, here’s the thing. If you spend any amount of time with me, you will eventually tell me your life story.

    You will.

    Not because I’m a prier. But because I’m simply and sincerely interested. In people. If you work for the sanitation department, I’m going to want to know about garbage trucks. If you bowl, I’m going to want to know about bowling. If you’re some kind of wackadoo, I’m going to want to hear your wackadooness. Sooner or later, you’re going to talk. And, yes, there will be things along the way that I just might put in my zing file. That’s not why I’m talking to you. But sometimes the slices of life are too good not to capture.

    So you put Larry Correia, International Lord of Hate, into a car with me, and he’s going to spill his guts.

    Let me tell you what I found. Oh yeah, wait until you hear this.

    Larry loves Bridget, his wife. No, do not turn away in horror. You must hear the rest of the tale.

    He doesn’t like taxes, which is outrageous. Simply beyond the pale.

    He’s a strong advocate of the right to bear arms. He figures people are safer with guns than without. And he was loaded. I remember getting to the hotel in Denver and seeing he draw his guns and put them on the table. A Kimber/Bul Poly .45 from his waist and a little Kahr MK9 on the ankle. Frightening. Of course, I never worried about going anywhere with him, but the guns had nothing to do with that.

    He doesn’t like the idea of a small group of people in Washington telling folks what they need to do. He’s not anti-government. He just likes a minimal amount of government. This too is outrageous. Government is the source of all good in the world.

    He doesn’t like a lot of what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did. One of those things he doesn’t like is the rounding up of Japanese Americans and putting them in war camps. Another was Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court with justices who would rule his way, essentially eliminating that branch’s check on the presidency. Nor does he like Roosevelt for being the first president to explicitly embrace deficit spending. The list with Roosevelt could go on. Of course, we all know that wise people everywhere thought Roosevelt made the right choice on these things.

    Larry honors the folks who serve in our military and law enforcement. Big time. Guys and gals who put their lives on the line or support those who do. I roll my eyes.

    Larry’s a big believer in pulling yourself up by your boot straps and getting to work. He worked on his father’s dairy farm milking cows early in life. Busted his chops in school. Busted his chops at work. Busted his chops writing novel after novel. And now he lives on Yard Moose Mountain. A supposed example of can-do economic mobility, which all smart people know is a farce.

    I mean, work? Come on. Do you see how unreasonable the man is?

    He’s an accountant and pretty good with numbers. Ergo he doesn’t like a lot of bureaucratic waste. It stinks to his accountant soul. And he saw a lot of that as a military contractor. I’m really for a lot of waste of taxpayer dollars, but I let him have his say.

    Larry was once a bouncer.

    He’s a big guy, but got his trash kicked in some early amateur MMA. But he still loved it.

    LarryCorreiacismale
    The International Lord of Hate in multiple colors

    In a friendly wrestling match, he broke his roommate’s toe, and said roommate responded by breaking the International Lord of Hate’s nose. Yes, the nose, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    Larry is funny.

    Larry has a lot of friends because, shocker, he’s a friendly guy.

    He’s also kind of a sheepdog.

    Larry is a capitalist. And it appears he’s the dirty greedy kind who uses his capitalistic ties for helping folks down on their luck.

    There’s more. But let me tell you what I never heard. I never heard him make a racist remark. Not even when he told me about growing up in California’s Central Valley, or when some idiot kids who had been tasked with beating someone up to to join a Hispanic gang targeted him. Never heard him make a misogynistic remark.

    I did hear how he loved to argue with folks on the internets. And then saw that later when I started reading his blog. It’s clear Larry likes a good fight. He’s a barbarian with big boots. But, in truth, he’s a friendly barbarian.

    That’s the expose. I know. Shocking, isn’t it.

    Now he’s gone and done this Hugo thing and calls people names and uses four-letter words on his blog posts.

    I’ve found that Larry in person is not quite the same as Larry online when you disagree with him. In person he’s usually very conversational when you disagree.

    Some might say he needs to be more polite online. Use more class.

    They might have a point. Sometimes I think he steps over the line. Then again, they might not. He does get people to listen. And some of the things he has to say are insightful and worthwhile. Others are just plain funny.

    Whatever your opinion, all I know is that if you’re wanting Abraham Lincoln, you’re going to have to look elsewhere. If you come out swinging, he’s not going to regale you with Kumbaya.

    larrycorreia
    The International Lord of Hate radiating fearsome hate

    And because he fights the way he does as Internet Larry, his posts seem to push some folks buttons to the point that they actually miss his intent.

    For example, when Larry responded to Alex MacFarlane’s call for “an end to the default of binary gender in science fiction stories,” he never once suggested that we should discriminate against the folks MacFarlane wants to read stories about. He never suggested there shouldn’t be any such stories. Nor did he ever suggest folks who are discriminated against never have a case. His point was that the best way to write an entertaining story was to put the entertainment first, not some political agenda. His point was also that he’s sick of folks trying to foist their interests on him and everyone else. If you want to write about certain types of characters, do it. But don’t tell everyone else they must.

    That was lost on some people. All they saw was someone who disagreed “rudely,” and they saw red.  I’d be seeing red too if I felt ruded upon. At the same time, they still missed his point. A lot have missed his point about the Hugos as well.

    But whatever happens with this latest kerfluffle, I had to tell my tale. Because I spent seven days with Larry Correia, International Lord of Hate. It was nip and tuck the whole time, but I survived his horrible onslaught. And then we enjoyed some ice creams and tropical trail mix, which I can happily report smelled a lot better than the beef jerky.

    Share
  • |

    Writing Update: 5/21/11 – visualize first, scene goals, the power of research

    ByJohn Brown

    I finished two chpaters this week. I’m quite a bit behind my stretch schedule which has me finishing the beginning of August although not too far behind my my conservative schedule which has me finishing the end of September.  A few more weeks and we’ll see if I’m giong to meet the stretch schedule.

    A lot of these first seven chapters are the same scenes as from before. Well, the same idea. But because enough has changed in the situations and because I’m writing some of the scenes from different points of view I have to rewrite them. So while I hope to catch up with some copy and paste from the last draft, I just am unable to do that here. 

    Visualize –> Report

    I thought I’d share one of my key methods for writing scenes. Here’s what I’ve found: when I can visualize the scene, it’s fairly easy to tell the reader what’s going on and to structure it in a way that achieves my purposes. When I can’t visualize it, I have nothing to tell. So for me the first thing I have to do is to see what’s going on. Then I can report as if I were there. Or if it’s from a more deep point of view penetration, I can report from my character’s eyes.

    So the sequence is to visualize (do the things that help me get that visual, feel, sound, etc.) then report in a way that will transport the reader and present the things I feel I need to present because they’re cool or because I want to generate a specific effect. 

    This is why I use the sketch/draft method. I sketch things out to get an idea of what’s going on first. Sure, I’ll discover details as I write. I’ll sometimes realize my first idea was off or wrong or won’t work. But if I don’t have an idea in the first place, I simply can’t write. It’s all a blank screen. One of the biggest causes of writer’s block is simply a lack of invention–of not having anything to write about because nothing’s in the mind of the writer.

    First have something to say. Then say it.

    Of course, you have to come up with the scenes in your mind before you have something to say. That takes some exploratory drafting, sketching, creative Q&A. You can see Orson Card doing some takes here in his writing lesson “Beginnings“, trying to help flesh it out in his mind. 

    The main tool I use to sketch is the summary–a bullet point or chapter outline like a posted about last week. However, sometimes it’s not enough. Sometimes I need an actual map to block out who does what and where. This week, for example, I was writing about Sugar coming into a village. She needed to enter then encounter some dead bodies.  I spent something like 45 minutes typing hardly anything and then realized-duh!-I don’t know what’s going on, where she’s going, why. I can’t see this place at all. I needed helping visualizing it first, not in super detail, but enough so I could report.

    So I took five minutes to sketch a simple map of the village, where she was when she entered, and where she was going, what was likely in the yards, the fences, etc. Once I saw it, I could then report, just tell what I saw as plainly as I could to the reader. I know these scenes fairly well, this being the FOURTH FREAKING DRAFT of this novel. And yet I’ve had to do some drawing for two scenes so far (the other drawing was for an ambush that wasn’t in the last draft). Because again, things had changed. And I had to see it before I could report it.

    Other tools that help me visualize and hear are actual photographs of things or people. Or audio of people’s voices. I was struggling getting a character in my mind for my short story LOOSE IN THE WIRES. I was listening at the time to Susan Grafton’s O IS FOR OUTLAW and when the actor performed this one character, suddenly I HEARD it. Boom, the guy came alive in my mind. Once alive there it was relatively easy to put him down on paper. Again, I was just relaying it to the reader.

    So I believe that what a writer must do is bring the situation to life in his or her mind first. It won’t be everything in exact detail. There’s a lot to be discovered in the writing. But it will be enough that it will feel like you’re simply telling something you saw or experienced.

    Scene Goals

    While writing, of course, I have objectives for my scenes. Sometimes I’ll do exploratory drafts, not having any goal except to see what happens and invent something cool. But that’s usually in my pre-draft stage. At this point I have a rough idea of where the story is going to go. I’ve already done a lot of the inventing. Now I have to translate it to scenes. And so I find having a quick list of objectives for the scene, along with my brief summary of what I’m expecting to happen, helps me visualize as well.

    Here are two examples of what a list of scene goals might look like for me.  These were for two scenes in draft 3 of CURSE.

    Example 1:

    • This is the time for her to make her HEROIC CHOICE. I want a heroic moment.
    • Terror of Legs being lost
    • Legs seeing her for the first time the next morning—he IS going to experiment because Urban is gone. Does he give something to her, his weave, twisted—Flax helped me.
    • Some tenderness
    • Last time with Mistress until the final battle

    Example 2:

    • Skir battle coolness. Need some surprises
      • Ayten dragging off souls
        • Sees it below on the ship
      • Seafire
      • What cool skir thing could there be?
        • Whirlwind
        • What would happen if a skir dived?
        • Some missiles, stones in the wind
        • First sight of that. She ship has slingers etc.
    • Sugar having to choose to leave people, see the beginnings of harvest
    • Oh Crap moment at end—this is going to be bad
    • This is the setup for the next scene where She and  Urban are spying and after the assessment, he says, we need to go. And she’s in indecision, and he says I will wait until, and then I will leave.

    They’re fairly simple.  Of course, I have other goals in mind that I don’t need to write down–“start and end with a hook,” or a rest, depending. “Transport the reader might be another,” meaning make sure I use what I know about presenting details. Another might be “bring the character on in an interesting way.” And because I generally know the big picture of what’s going to happen, I can focus on these other details as I write.

    Research: Monster Zing & Visualize Method

    Research is also a monster method for visualizing and for zing. I can’t tell you how much it has helped me in the past and on my current projects. In the thriller I’m working on where the main character is ex Special Forces, I could barely visualize anything. Some I’m reading books about it and talking to people who are in Special Forces and watching films about it. There’s no way I could build a story I cared about and believed in without research. I’m going to be doing a ride along with a cop, visit our state prison, and maybe talk to some ex-cons for this as well.

    Tim Powers came to the Writer’s of the Future workshop I attended many years ago. He talked about many things. But research was one of them. In fact, one of the idea generating methods discussed in the workshop, one on which Hubbard himself had written a fine article that we read called “Search for Research” (click the Next or Continued link at the bottom to continue through all the pages of the essay), was about the power of research. So Powers recently did an interview about the latest Johnny Depp Pirates release , which is inspired by his book of the same title (which I read and loved), and restated what he did so many years ago:

    Q: What inspired you to write On Stranger Tides?
    A: I was already hooked into using real historical places for settings. And so I thought, you know you loved Treasure Island…And I thought I bet you can set a nice fantasy story in among the pirates, Black Beard, that crowd. So I read a million books (that is probably fifteen books) about that particular crowd of pirates that were in the Caribbean in 1718 like Stede Bonnet, Black Beard, and Anne Bonny.

    What I always do when I’m writing a book is first I read all the history and biographies and things like that that I can find. And I look for stuff that’s too cool not to use. ‘Ooh that’s neat. Look at that. I like that.’ And I’ll write it down. And then I’ll find something else and say, ‘Oh wow this is great. You got to have a scene happening in this place. Oh you gotta use this guy.’ Eventually, I’ll have twenty or thirty things that are too cool not to use. And it’s kind of fun then because you say, ‘Well okay, here’s twenty or thirty parts of your book. You just have to connect the dots.’ And so I thought, ‘Ok, what was Black Beard really up to?’

    So to sum up.

    1. Visualize, then report.  That’s what I’ve found I have to do. It makes it so much easier to write when I have a picture in my mind.
    2. Scene goals help me visualize the scene and what needs to happen.
    3. Research is a huge tool for helping me find zing and to visualize and invent something I can visualize. 
    4. The Sketch/Draft process (I explained it in last week’s post and in the interview with Maya Lassiter) is another work horse of a tool for helping me visualize and invent by degrees.
    Share

  • What I’m looking for from SFWA

    ByJohn Brown

    SFWA has asked M.C.A. Hogarth to head up the new self-publishing committee. Hogarth posted about this and asks:

    So here’s my question for those of you who self-publish, either entirely or as a hybrid author: what services would you look for in a professional organization? What would make you say, “Wow, that’s worth $90 a year, sign me up?”

    I applaud SFWA’s move. And the many good things SFWA has done in the past. However, as an indie and SFWA member, here’s what would interest me: Business.

    That’s with a big B.

    That means . . .

    Distribution into brick and mortar venues. So indie authors can get on the Ingram’s catalog. Big whoop. The retailer still has to order. If SFWA was able to facilitate the sales function in some way, that alone would be worth it.

    One idea is a SFWA catalog of vetted work. I don’t know how you’d vet. Maybe some certain sales and revenue level. And revenue would have to be part of it. Brick and Mortar isn’t going to be interested in stocking the person who “sold” 50,000 units but only made $300 because 99% of them were free downloads.

    You might also consider the back lists of authors with work that was once published that has been brought back indie style. So a catalog of that includes new stuff and a section for the back list. Quality and popular indie work.

    BTW, this catalog would ALSO go to libraries.

    Education in cover design AND art direction. Maybe adding this to an awards category chosen NOT by the general membership but art pros.

    The Nebulas recognize author’s who sell. But what about recognizing those who are author-publishers, what about recognizing and celebrating quality and achievement in the key elements of publishing?

    Education in Marketing that has actually been tested and shows positive ROI. Not a bunch of articles about bookmarks and conventions. Real ROI.

    Interior formatting. Principles. Awards.

    News. What’s new on the indie front. New markets etc.

    Selling foreign rights as an indie with and without an agent.

    What about an award like RWA’s Golden Heart, but for indie books? Or make indies more inclusive in the Nebulas.

    A vendor forum where folks who provide services to indie authors (editors, artists, etc) can be listed and rated, GoodReads style, but only by SFWA members.

    And two things I have submitted to SFWA before as a trad pub author.

    Education and discussion of contracts and contract terms. What’s current. What’s alarming. I get more off of Kris Rusch’s blog than the professional organization I belong to. I should be giving my $90 bucks to Kris. What the heck?

    Education and discussion of current contract rates. Same as above. For a professional organization to not have data on current rates for novels is a real head-scratcher.

    How is it that Tobias Buckell can run a survey, but it never occurs to SFWA to survey and publish annual numbers?

    How is it that Brenda Hiatt, the romance writer who does an annual “Show Me The Money” and “Indie Earnings” report, provides more info on Tor advances than SFWA? Romance writers are better organized than any writing group on the planet, but do they need to spank us in our own house?

    These last two are no-brainers.

    This is a trade organization. These types of things would be a HUGE help.

    Share

  • Federal Spending 1972-2011: What The?!?

    ByJohn Brown

    Last week a chart made the rounds, ranking the Presidents since Reagan on spending.  Look at Reagan.  That happy man is a freaking profligate. Obama, on the other hand, heck, he’s doing better than Bill Clinton.

    Except there are a few problems.

    First, I can’t tie this data out to the official CBO numbers.

    Second, it does a bit of apples and oranges because the numbers are based on each president’s whole time in office.  What does it mean when Obama increases the debt by 35% over three years, but it takes Bill Clinton almost EIGHT YEARS to increase the debt that much?  A better measure would be an average per year.

    Third, some have suggested this chart monkeys with the numbers, allocating the first year of each president’s first term to the previous president.

    Fourth, the president isn’t the only one in Washington. Senators and Congressmen also have responsibility.

    Finally, while a % increase in debt is a helpful measure, it’s not the only story. And it can be misleading if viewed on its own. For example, if we have $1 of debt, and I increase that to $10, I’ve increased our debt by 1000%. Holy Schnitzel!  But if we have $500 million of debt and I increase it to $600 million, I’ve only increased it by 20%. Which is worse?

    So I went out to the CBO and took their numbers from 1972 – 2011.  You may get the XLS file yourself: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911. Then I made sure to identify who was in charge when and marked it with spiffy colors (Red is Republican, Blue is Democrat). Here are the results. Click on it to see it in its full size glory.

     

     What does this tell us?

    First, there was only ONE four-year stretch in the LAST FREAKING FORTY YEARS where the folks in Washington did not spend MORE than they took in. That was the four year period from 1998 – 2001.

    What the?!?

    Look at that chart again. There is a serious and systemic spending problem in Washington.

    What happened in 1998 to change what had been going on for almost three decades? That was when the citizens got fed up with Washington, threw out a great number of the Senators and Congressmen, and bought into the Contract with America.  This was when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. This was when Clinton was getting pounded for all sorts of stuff and worked with those particular Republicans in Congress to balance the budget.

    Second, the deficit, the purple line at the bottom, tripled when Obama took office.  And stayed!  Who put that first chart together? Oh, yeah. It was Nancy Pelosi.

    You might say, well, raw dollars is good.  But what’s really important is how big a percentage that spending is of our nation’s GDP. If you’re spending 100 billion when the nation is producing 1 trillion, that sounds big, but it’s actually not as big a deal as when you’re spending 100 billion and the nation is only producing 200 billion. Okay, let’s look at these numbers as a % of GDP.

    Again, 1998-2001 were good years. On a % basis, the folks in Washington during that time did better than anyone else in not spending the nation’s wealth.  There’s no doubt that Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton during his fist 3 years and the Congress during those times were all happy to be big spenders.  Look at the debt burden during their years. But Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress since 2007–drunken sailors compared to those guys. And then the Republicans come in and it doesn’t change. Gridlock?

    Let’s look at our presidents since 1972 and see how well they do on an annual basis. Those numbers in the first list, BTW, are stated in billions.

    Seems to me the most fiscally responsible groups were those in charge during the latter part of the Clinton years, the Nixon years, and the year when Nixon resigned.  It appears that during that year the folks in Washinton were so busy with the Watergate scandal they forgot to feed their spending appetites.

    Bottom line: as I said before, Washington has a serious and systemic problem with over spending.

    And when I say “systemic” I mean it appears the whole thing is rigged to produce over spending. We don’t just need new people out there. We need a system that prevents the overspending. We need an ammendment that requires a balanced budget and caps the size of the government in relation to GDP.

    We also need to find a way to incentivize Congress to pass a budget each year.  No budget, no pay is a good idea. The current House has indeed passed a budget. But the Democratic Senate has not, preventing us from having a budget at all. Obama submits budgets, but not a soul in the Senate, Democrat or Republican, will vote for them. It’s only the Republican House who seems to want to actually do their job. How can that be? Read It’s Deja Vu All Over Again with National Fiscal Policy for more info.

    This November we need to get a bunch of folks like those in 1998 back in Washington. A President AND a Congress who will actually finally tame the nation’s out of control spending.  Let me suggest you look at your Congressman’s and Senators’ records.  How have they voted? As for President Obama, well, I’m looking at the numbers above.

    Related Links

    Share

2 Comments

Comments are closed.