Power Balance, the company that promises increased strength, flexibility and balance by wearing cheap plastic holograms on cheap rubber bracelets, has apparently lost its own balance, and has filed for Chapter 11 protections under bankruptcy law. Despite endorsements by famous professional athletes like Drew Brees and Shaquille O’Neal, claiming that the product really works for them, and despite entire sports arenas being named after the product, it seems there was always a bit of a problem with presenting any scientific evidence for any of these suspicious claims.

Consumers Call Foul

Now, a reported $57 million settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by disgruntled consumers has caused the company to seek protection from creditors. One of these creditors is NBA All-Star Kobe Bryant, whose company claims it is owed $400,000. A company spokesman, however, has stated that the company wants to continue in business, bringing increased health and performance to millions of others through the benefits of pseudoscience.

Last year, the Australian consumer watchdog organization forced Power Balance to admit that “no credible scientific evidence” supports its claims. Despite this, Power Balance was named the CNBC “Sports Product of the Year,” and was one of Amazon’s top five sellers last Christmas season. The Sacramento Kings, a professional basketball team, gave the company naming rights to its sports arena, the new “Power Balance Arena.”

How It’s Supposed to Work

How does this amazing product work? Simple. The “frequency” embedded in the hologram “reacts’ with the “electrical field” of the human body to improve balance, flexibility and strength. This completely bogus pseudo-scientific babble was enough to convince millions, especially teenagers anxious to emulate their sports heroes, to buy up these extremely overpriced rubber bands. An entire new industry was spawned, with other companies such as Eken Power Bands following suit.

Miracle Off Balance

And the Sacramento Kings have not lost faith in this miracle product. “They have been good partners since day one and are, understandably, taking steps to put the company in a position to continue innovation in the performance technology sector.”

“Innovation in the performance technology sector?” A cheap (but expensively priced) bracelet, supported by nothing more than scientific illiteracy, is a part of the “performance technology sector?”

Not to worry though. You can’t keep this sector of our economy down for long. Next up for Power Balance will be its new “Performance Mouth Gear.” If this new product incorporates the same holographic techniques, maybe wearing a hologram against your teeth will give you more strength to flatten your opponent. Just ask the next pro celebrity who will surely endorse this miracle product, destined to make another top five list at Amazon.

Thus, Representative Joe Barton (R., Texas) this year introduced the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB, get it?) Act, repealing any such energy efficiency standards, on the grounds that the former Act “bans” normal light bulbs and requires use of CFL’s (Compact Fluorescent Lights), those spiral shaped bulbs we’re seeing more and more often.

The newly discovered perspective on this evil legislation even convinced its former co-sponsor Fred Upton (R., Mich.) to switch and work for its repeal. Unfortunately for them, however, the House defeated the proposed repeal of the law on a 233-193 vote, which failed to reach the necessary two-thirds majority.

So, what happened to turn so many Republican heads against a law they sponsored four years ago, including Rep. Upton who currently chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee? A recent campaign by Rush Limbaugh, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (“President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want”), and Tea Party “leader” Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) cast the law as a federally mandated ban on normal light bulbs. The law did no such thing, and simply spurred innovative light bulb manufacturers to find better ways to tackle the original, energy hungry, incandescent bulb invented by Thomas Edison in 1880, back when energy was home grown and plentiful.

Light Bulb Ready to Make the Switch

In fact, major American light bulb manufacturers such as Sylvania, Philips and General Electric (founded by Edison) were in favor of the 2007 legislation, and are in the process of unveiling new light bulbs, including incandescent bulbs, that meet the new federal standards and save the country billions in energy costs per year. It is estimated that the new standards will save the average household between $100 and $200 per year in energy costs and reduce harmful heat-trapping gases equivalent to the emissions from 17 million cars. Even Edison’s family is in favor of such innovations. Barry Edison Sloane, Edison’s great-grandson, stated: “I am appalled that any legislative body would be so narrow-minded as to discourage new and advanced technology.” Nope, no light bulb ban anywhere in sight.

Pushing Dirty Energy

So what’s behind this sudden aversion to a law everyone seemed to love just four years ago? According to columnist Jim Hightower, a big part of the recent attempt to derail the law came from the Koch brothers, leading financiers of the conservative “lights” mentioned above.  Koch Industries is a $35 billion privately held petrochemical company, and as Hightower points out, the Koch brothers are in the “dirty energy business and profit when you use more of it to light your house.”

Political debate in this country has become so polarized that we can’t even seem to be able to agree on a simple proposition that saving energy costs and promoting innovation are good things.

It comes as no surprise that the latest polls show Congress’s approval rating at an all time low of 14%. If we disapprove of the job Congress is doing, why do we keep voting incumbents back into office, as we do year in and year out?

Our Two Party System

A big part of the problem with our system is the two party politics that have infected this country from almost its beginning. Come national election day, no matter what the issues are or what we think about them, we are always faced with the same three choices: vote for the Republican nominee, vote for the Democratic nominee, or stay home. This is the case despite the fact that the Constitution makes no mention of political parties, two or otherwise. Only our first President George Washington, however, was elected without an affiliation with one of two major parties.

Every now and then, a third party candidate makes an attempt to break the deadlock the two major parties have on our elections. In 1992, Ross Perot’s Reform Party campaign did well in early polls, but come election day he only garnered 19% of the popular vote, and zero electoral votes. Republicans and Democrats are quite happy with their monopoly on American politics, and impose as many barriers as they can to third party candidates, from onerous ballot access laws to debate rules that usually exclude third parties from participation.

It is probably a common phenomenon that American voters look at the two choices on the ballot, hold their noses, and vote for the “lesser of two evils.”

A Modest Proposal

There is, however, a way out of our self-inflicted predicament. Imagine if the next time you went into a voting booth to vote for your Representative, Senator or President you always had three choices: Republican, Democratic, or None of the Above. Instead of having to vote for one of two choices, neither of whom may be particularly palatable to you, you could in effect say: “Nope, I don’t like either one of you.”

How would this work? Who would win the election? In my system, if  “none of the above” got more votes than all of candidates, the parties would have to go back to the drawing board and come up with two new candidates. The election would be won by the first candidate to win more votes than the other candidate and “none of the above.” Finally, true freedom of choice.

Advantages of “None of the Above”

Under such a system of voting, certain advantages would accrue to the electorate. Currently, our two party system is a zero sum game. In other words, any vote Candidate A can take away from Candidate B comes into Candidate A’s camp. Thus, we have the endless stream of negative advertising we are all subjected to every election. Candidates don’t have to convince you to vote for them, just vote against that idiot in the grainy photograph who advocates socialism or fascism.

With “none of the above,” that won’t work as well. If Candidate A does not give you a good reason to vote FOR him or her, as opposed to Candidate B, you can always choose that third option – I don’t want either of you representing me. Give me a good reason why I should vote for you, not against the other guy. Negative ads from each of the two major party candidates will almost guarantee that “None of the above” would win.

Perhaps such a system will actually encourage more viable third parties, particularly centrist parties seeking to appeal to the large number of independent voters discouraged by decades of incompetent rule by Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

Disadvantages

Obviously, such a voting system would be more expensive for each major party, since they would have to reconvene and come up with new candidates. In order to prevent an endless succession of “none of the above’s” there would have to be a limit on re-voting. Perhaps after two tries at coming up with better candidates, the election would go to the one candidate who got the most votes out of all the elections.

Also, this system would make election season longer if the voters are dissatisfied with the choices given to them by the two major parties. There would probably have to be limitations on the length of campaigns.

Such regulation of political campaigns is also problematic, in and of itself, and would probably not find approval under First Amendment grounds.

There is, of course, one other big disadvantage. It will never happen. The Republican and Democratic parties have a death grip on American politics. Their petty squabbles will continue. “If you don’t give me what I want, I’m taking my ball and going home.”

Oh well, it was a thought.

Perhaps a better solution is term limits for congressmen and a limited six year term for the President. That would allow our politicians to concentrate on doing some good and seeking solutions for America while they’re in office, instead of spending all of their time posturing and running for re-election. But that’s another column.

We all know health care expenses have risen dramatically, not just in America but around the world, as more sophisticated and expensive medical procedures become available. America has, however, the most effective health care system in the world – right? Wrong. Compared to eighteen other major economies around the world, the United States comes in almost dead last! We spend the most by far for what almost ends up being the least effective health care.

Cost-effectiveness study

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1. Ireland
2. United Kingdom
3. New Zealand
4. Austria
5. Australia
6. Italy
7. Finland
8. Japan
9. Spain
10. Sweden
11. Canada
12. Netherlands
13. France
14. Norway
15. Greece
16. Germany
17. USA
18. Portugal
19. Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

But what about the great medical facilities within the United States? Eight of the top ten hospitals in the world are located in the United States. An Arab sheik with tons of money will come to Johns Hopkins or Massachusetts General for his cancer treatment. That gives a clue to the answer. If you have all the money in the world, America is the place to come for the best health care. If, however, you live on a budget, you’re better off in any of the other top sixteen countries on the list, than here in America.

We may not be number one in the world, or even number fifteen, but we sure don’t have any of that socialized medicine!

In one of the most blatant examples of just how corrupt politics has become in Washington, D.C., the head of the Federal Communications Commission, just a few months after voting to allow one of the largest corporate mergers in history, has accepted a high paying job at the new giant NBC/Comcast media company. This raises an interesting question: can we call it corruption, if it’s all perfectly legal under current rules?

The Marriage of Two Giants

Last year, two media giants decided to get married. NBC/Universal is a media and entertainment company which owns and operates television stations and networks, movie studios, and theme parks. The total value of the company last year was $32 billion. Along came Comcast Corporation, the world’s largest cable operator, home internet provider and third largest telephone company, worth $44 billion. The two companies thought that a merger would create a behemoth media entity that could rule the airwaves.

One Major Hurdle

Of course, there was a huge hurdle. They first had to convince the FCC, our watchdog for the interests of consumers and free competition for our airwaves (a limited resource that must be used sparingly), that such a marriage was a good thing for the country, as well as their respective bottom lines. So hearings were held and hard questions asked and answered.

One of the five FCC commissioners making this important decision was Meredith Attwell Baker, family friend of the Bush’s and former telecommunications lobbyist, recently appointed to a “Republican seat” (yes, these seats are assigned based on political affiliations) by President Obama at the start of his administration. Previously, as a regulator with the Commerce Department, Commissioner Baker had already become a friend of Comcast based on her support of its fight against the FCC regarding net neutrality rules.

On a 4-1 vote, the FCC decided that letting two of the largest media companies merge and consolidate their businesses was “good for America.” It will come as no great surprise that Commissioner Baker was a solid vote for the merger of these two giants.

The Revolving Door ”Pay-off”

It should also come as no surprise that just four months after voting for this lucrative merger, Commissioner Baker left after serving just two years of her five year appointment. What could have lured her away from such a fine government post? She became “Senior Vice President of Government Affairs” (i.e., highly paid lobbyist) for NBC/Universal. Even for some jaded Washington insiders, this blatant example of a revolving door between government jobs and corporate jobs was almost too much.

Due to the uproar caused in some circles by this switch from public regulator to corporate bigwig, Congress will investigate, so we can all breath a sigh of relief. Republican Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Representative Darrell Issa (CA), has asked the FCC to explain the departure of Commissioner Baker. Here’s a firm prediction you can take to the bank: Comcast and Senior Vice President Meredith Baker will state that any and all discussions about coming to work for the merged giant occurred only after the merger vote had been taken, and thus no rules were violated. A few members of Congress will tut-tut and bemoan the infamous revolving door problem, and the news will become quickly forgotten.

We have gotten so used to the open air corruption that is commonplace in our government, to the buying of Senators and Congressmen, the clear love affair regulators have with big corporations and antipathy to the average consumer, that such stories as the Comcast merger no longer give rise to outrage. It’s just business as usual.  As someone once said: “Every country has the government it deserves.” If you don’t like what you see, America, quit voting the way you do year after year.

Why is it that every time you turn around these days, you find a lawmaker up on Capitol Hill trying to stick it to the consumer?  Of course, it’s very important to protect multi-million dollar corporations from those pesky people who buy stuff from them; we all know that.  But gosh, isn’t this going a bit far.  First, we must ensure our oil companies continue to get their tax breaks, and now Republican Congressman from North Carolina Patrick McHenry is taking cheap shots at the person trying to set up a Consumer Protection Bureau.

Consumer Advocate and Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren came up with the crazy idea that there should be someone looking out for consumers these days, since they’re getting ripped off so much.

Flashback to the mortgage meltdown, bogus banking fees and credit card interest rates,  just to name a few. Anyhow, she’s now working on setting up a federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and went before a House committee to talk about it.  Enter Representative McHenry.  He attacked Warren repeatedly, calling her part of a “super class of administrative elites.”

It seems McHenry is upset that Warren is proposing to simplify consumer contracts with companies, so there won’t be so much small print.  Warren has come up with a two-page mortgage contract to help homeowners avoid problems like signing up for mortgages they don’t understand, but apparently Representative McHenry thinks it’s a good idea to trick consumers into signing up for something they don’t really want.  Companies make more money that way, you know.  McHenry was clearly gunning for his corporate buddies.

Ever since last year when Warren’s idea for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau became a reality with the Dodd-Frank Act, Republicans have been trying to eliminate any power it might have to help consumers. Why have consumers become the enemy?  Are we really that dispensable to these politicians who prefer corporate interests over consumer interests?  Maybe it’s time to send a message.  The next time you head to the voting booth, think about your friends in Congress.  Think really hard, about who their friends really are.

By Terry Smiljanich:

The Deceptive Game of Automatic Renewal

Are your children playing too much Xbox LIVE and ignoring their homework? Are they on an automatic renewal program through your credit card? Have you tried to cancel the automatic renewal of the yearly charges by Microsoft and run into a problem? Join the crowd.

Popular Games Suck You In

Although some gamers complain about the fact that Microsoft charges a fee for allowing its Xbox games to be played over the internet with other live players, many still like the features of Xbox. Popular games such as ”Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2,” “Call of Duty: Black Ops,” “World of Warcraft,” and “Halo 3” attract millions of players who like the live action feel of playing against friends or strangers. Some games, like Halo 3, can only be played on Xbox consoles. Others can also be played on Playstation or Wii.

“Xbox LIVE Gold” allows the player to do so on Xbox machines for a yearly fee of $49. You can sign up directly on your console or by visiting the Xbox web site. First, however, you are told you have to create a Microsoft.com account and allow automatic charging to your credit card. This is where things start getting tricky.

Cancelling Your Subscription

The problem comes when and if you try to cancel the automatic renewal of your account with Xbox Live. Simple, right? Just click on . . . what exactly? For what should be obvious reasons, Microsoft has made it very, very difficult to figure out how to cancel your subscription. No matter what you try to click to change your account, you keep getting told that you must call a customer service representative to change your account.

Call that number and you will almost certainly hear a pleasant voice tell you that “your call is important to us” and that all lines are currently busy. After waiting and waiting, you are tempted to give up. If you are lucky enough to get through, it will take some doing to get the representative, “Joe” from India, to cooperate and actually cancel your account automatic renewal. Sometimes, even when you are told it has been accomplished, you will find that your next renewal will be made anyway, despite your instructions.

The problem got bad enough for some customers that they even turned to class action lawsuits to complain about the practice.

We all understand that Microsoft loves being able to automatically hit your credit card on a periodic basis, but does it have to be quite so devious as to throw petty little hurdles in your path? Why can’t there be a simple self-intuitive way to cancel the automatic renewal?

Two Ways to Cancel Your Subscription

There are two ways to do this that each avoid having to deal with call waiting and “Joe” in customer service. Instead of dealing directly with Microsoft, call your credit card company. If your account has been charged against your wishes, the credit card company will put the amount “in dispute.” You will probably then get a notice of a credit to your account for the disallowed charge. Whether your account has been renewed or not, you can and should tell your credit card company to disallow any further charges on the account by Microsoft. That will stop such unwanted charges dead cold.

Guess what happens next? You’ll get a friendly email from Xbox saying it is having trouble renewing your account and to please contact the company. You should tell Xbox that its message is important to you, but you can’t get back to it just yet.

Another way has apparently been figured out by someone who has been through the same problem. By clicking through somewhat complicated options on the Xbox site, there might be a way to accomplish this without resorting to a call to your credit card company. You can try to follow the instructions given in a You Tube video, but we haven’t tried it and can’t vouch for its success.

Now if we could just do something about getting in touch with customer service representatives at your credit card company!

Even though former Vice President Dick Cheney used to say that “deficits don’t matter,” back when the Republicans were running up huge budgetary imbalances, deficit reduction is the new mantra for Republicans, Tea-Partiers, and increasing numbers of Democrats, including the President. On the chopping block are billions of dollars in cuts in domestic discretionary spending, including home heating oil subsidies for the poor, Public Broadcasting, Pell Grants, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Accepting for a moment that such draconian cuts in the federal budget are prudent, especially when the country is trying to recover from a serious recession, isn’t there a better way to achieve this goal?

America’s Defense Budget – How Large is Large Enough?

Indeed there is. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be accomplished in this regard without taking a very serious look at the country’s bloated defense budget. America prides itself as having the most powerful military in the world, surpassing even Imperial Rome in the hey day of its hegemony.

How powerful? Great Britain, when it controlled a global empire in the 19th Century, set a standard for itself in determining how much to spend on its military – more expenditures than the next two countries with the largest armies and navies of the world.

By contrast, America spends almost as much on its military as the combined forces of the rest of the world. Its official budget for FY2010 is $665 billion, amounting to about 47% of the world total military spending. Granted, its gross domestic product is also the largest in the world, but even that amounts to only 21% of the world total GDP.

Of that amount, $150 billion is spent on military pay, 23% of the total. The remaining 77% goes to operating expenses, and payments to private contractors.

America’s Defense Budget – How Honest Are the Figures?

To make matters even more unbalanced, the official defense budget of the United States is also an official lie. In order to make the figure seem smaller, several large ticket items are excluded from the defense budget and hidden in other departments, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Energy. Taking care of soldiers and arming the country with nuclear weapons apparently doesn’t count toward what we spend on defense. When all of these “off the books” expenditures are included, the total spent by the American government on its military defense is over $1 trillion, thus swamping the global defense spending of the rest of the world in a flood of American tax dollars.

A Modest Proposal For Reducing the Federal Budget

Let’s dream for a moment that it were politically feasible to seriously reduce the defense budget. We’ll be generous and say that America should scale back only a bit, so that it still outspends the next five largest military budgets in the world (China, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany). We could do this by cutting the defense budget in half, to about $330 billion.

What could we do with that extra $335 billion? For starters, we could:

1. Lower taxes for the middle class;
2. Expand, rather than contract, our expenditures on education;
3. Increase our border security;
4. Improve our transportation infrastructure;
5. Expand research and development in medicine and technology;
6. Decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

There would still be money left over for deficit cuts, but not at the expense of our domestic budget. And we’re talking serious reductions, not the fractional pennies we would save by cutting, for example, PBS.

There would be some costs, however. Thousands of federal defense employees would be laid off, but then the deficit cutters would like that prospect, right? Thousands of private contracting employees would likewise be laid off, hurting the corporate profits of a few large defense firms, but these workers would then be free to take up some of the jobs created by our increased expenditures in the private sector. A few military bases would have to be closed for sure. And finally, we would have to tell the democratically elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan that they will have to take over responsibility for their own internal security.

Reality Rears Its Ugly Head

All in all, not a bad deal. Of course, all of this is just a pipe dream. No politician could survive the storm of protest over these defense cuts, even though America would still remain the greatest military power in the world by far. After all, it’s easier to go after PBS or home heating oil than it is to go after Lockheed Martin and Blackwater USA.

In our advertising we stated that Power Balance wristbands improved your strength, balance and flexibility. We admit that there is no credible scientific evidence that supports our claims and therefore we engaged in misleading conduct .  .  .  [under Australian law].

Despite this admission, the company is doing quite well, thank you. In yet another example of how gullibility can be made profitable, it has just been announced that Power Balance is buying the naming rights to Arco Stadium in Sacramento, California, where the Sacramento Kings NBA team play. Yes, “Power Balance Stadium,” flush from record sales, will be hosting many professional sports and other community events.

“We are thrilled to be partners with Power Balance,” said Kings co-owners Joe and Gavin Maloof. “This is a great collaboration for the entire Kings franchise and we are particularly excited in this economy to be able to sign a multi-year agreement with a company on Power Balance’s trajectory.”

Indeed, the CNBC Network named the Power Balance Bracelet the “Sports Product of the Year” for 2010, and Amazon.com has stated these plastic bracelets with holograms on them were one of its top five best selling items this holiday season. Many professional athletes claim to wear them because they improve their strength, flexibility and balance.

In a recent press release, the company’s President Keith Kato stated: “The mission of Power Balance has always been to develop and deliver quality products that enhance people’s lives. Our products are based on the idea of optimizing the body’s natural energy flow, similar to concepts behind many holistic and Eastern philosophies. Frankly, we know there will always be critics of new technologies, but our products are used by those with open minds who experience real results. Our company is absolutely committed to further evaluating the technology behind its products’ performance so that we can continue to offer products that enhance people’s lifestyle.”

“New technology”? Holograms have been around since the 1950′s, and the last time we looked, plastic bracelets have been around at least as long as that. Holograms work by using scattered light off of a flat surface. Holograms are on many plastic driver’s licenses and credit cards, so most of us are already “wearing holograms.”

And how does Power Balance respond to the admission forced on it by the Australian government that there is “no credible scientific evidence” to support its claims and that it engaged in misleading conduct? Its press release states:  Contrary to recent assertions in the Australian press, Power Balance has made no claims that our product does not perform. True enough. It only admitted that there is no credible scientific evidence to support its scientific claims regarding holograms and “body frequencies.”

Let’s make this as plain as we can: wearing a plastic wristband with a cheap hologram on it will not “optimize the body’s natural energy flow,” whatever that vague statement means, nor will it “resonate with and respond to the natural energy field of the body,” whatever that pseudoscientific phrase means, nor does broadly referencing “holistic and Eastern philosophies” add any credibility to such claims. The only thing wearing this $29.95 item will optimize is the obviously healthy bottom line of the Power Balance company.

All the testimonials in the world from “thousands of athletes” will not prove the claims of this company, any more than statements from millions of people that wearing a rabbit’s foot brings them luck. Australia’s consumer watchdogs did their job. Where are this country’s consumer protection agencies in the midst of all this nonsense?

Common themes ran through most of the successful campaigns during this 2010 midterm election: less government, lower taxes, no deficits. Voters spoke loudly and clearly – we want chocolate fudge sundaes with no calories!

Now a bipartisan deficit reduction commission is also chiming in making some controversial proposals on how to reduce the deficit.  Let’s take a look at what’s on the table.

The federal 2010 budget is $3.54 trillion. The deficit this year is $1.42 trillion. Thus, to bring the deficit down to zero, we would have to cut the budget by 40%. No politician could get elected on that impossible platform. There are certain sacred cows in the federal budget.

Let’s start with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They make up the bulk of non-discretionary federal spending, the 60% of yearly federal spending that takes place without Congressional action. No politician who wants to get reelected is going to talk about reducing Social Security or Medicare.

Add another 5% of the budget devoted to interest payments on our debt (we can’t default on those Chinese loans), and that leaves only 35% of the federal budget left to play with, not enough to eliminate the deficit.

But it gets worse. Of the 35% left for discretionary spending by Congress, 20% of that is for the defense budget, another sacred cow in American politics. We can’t “support the troops,” “remember 9/11,” or reward all those defense contractor campaign contributions by touching any of that money. Check out my previous article which analyzed the bloated defense budget.

That leaves 15% of the total federal budget, the place we will have to look to for any move toward “less government” with “no deficits.” Since we now know that “no deficits” is an impossibility with these times and this budget, we will have to scale back our desires and just look for smaller cuts.

Let’s see what would happen if we just took a 50% cut across the board, reducing the deficit by 7.5%, or $265 billion. Are we ready for some of these sacrifices?

• Firing half of the meat and poultry inspectors;
• Eliminating half of the air traffic controllers and FAA investigators;
• Approving most new drugs without any analysis;
• Cutting veteran’s benefits in half;
• Closing half of the federal prisons and letting prisoners go free;
• Firing half of our FBI agents and federal prosecutors;
• Eliminating most of the farm subsidies;
• Closing 20 national parks, especially the expensive ones like Yellowstone and Yosemite;
• Letting half of the deteriorating highways and bridges go unrepaired;
• Firing half of the border patrol and customs and cargo inspectors;
• Shutting down the space program, and relying on Russian and Chinese rockets.

These are just some of the “less government” results we would get in attempting to reduce the deficit by just 7%.

Of course, there are two other alternatives. If we can’t tackle the deficit by such draconian cuts, perhaps we could increase taxes. I must be kidding, of course. Didn’t we already demand “lower taxes” as well? Even though personal income taxes are at historic lows, aren’t we already being “taxed to death?”

Another way is to either take steps to boost the economy (stimulus, anyone?), or give the wealthiest big tax cuts so they will hire more workers, hoping they don’t instead just buy more gold-plated faucets or stockpile their money and pass it on to their children tax free.

I don’t know about you, but I just can’t wait for some more of that calorie free chocolate fudge sundae!