Thoughts on doing jury duty

Nothing like starting off 2012 with a glorious two weeks of jury duty. Yes, unlike most of my peers, my first work day of the new year did not occur until the third week January - all thanks to that little piece of paper that comes once in awhile in the mail to remind you of your civic duty as a United States citizen. The timing of it all perhaps could have been better (my boss was certainly not a fan of seeing his employee not show up for work post Christmas break for another two weeks), but of course my usual nonchalance failed to notice on the jury summon just how awkward the date turned out to be.

For it was not until that first Sunday of 2012 that I remembered I had jury duty that week, and as fate would have it, I had to report on in person on that Monday (I was desperately hoping for one of those chances where I wouldn't have to show up at all the whole week.) In hindsight I really should have requested for an alternate date because I was all ready to go back to work and other stuff with the kind of renewed rigor that comes with the turn of a calendar year. Instead I was stuck in a room with the same people for two straight weeks listening to the same story, while getting "paid" a pittance.

LIKE GOING THROUGH AN AIRPORT

Of course I have been summoned before - and narrowly escaped serving the duration. It still amazes me the level of efficiency the State has in processing the sheer number of people each day going through the gates (so to speak) and sitting through the selection process. Makes me wonder just how on earth they managed such a feat before the days of computers and databases. Judging by the state of the jury reception room at the Hall of Justice where I went to serve, that place was definitely in use before the digital revolution. Must be just insufferable back then.  

Before we even get to that, I must direct your attention at the front door of the building. Being a public building of significance, of source the Hall of Justice would have the robust kind of security checkpoint with the common scanners and metal detectors, not unlike those at Airports these days (except they haven't got full body x-ray scanners - yet). Obviously getting hundres of people into one building but having the need to check everybody for dangerous materials created a natural choke point. For the first couple of mornings I was actually late even though I was on time (?) because I had waited a good 15 minutes to go through security. 

I did however find it amusing each morning seeing people who sag there pants take off their belts so not to trip up the metal detectors. It is like really, what are the belts for? Clearly not holding up your pants because after all they have been down to your knees ever since I started noticing you walking along with me to enter the building. So is it all in ironic fashion then? A fashion statement? Because clearly that belt serve no practical function. Now I am certainly not against the aesthetics of sagging pants as a subset of the greater fashion culture (I have certain done it myself in my previous ages), but to then wear a belt at the same time just screams stupidity. It appears to the outsider that the person sagging his pants does not have the cognitive ability to use a belt (and these are adults!)

A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT TO BE THERE

It really is an interesting dynamic that goes on at the jury reception room - the room where everybody that is summoned on that day for that time slot get packed in together to await for their call to specific court rooms. Now on the positive the room is big, airy, and has comfortable tables and chairs. It even has lavatories and vending machine should you fancy some snacks.

The positives ends there of course, because there nothing quite like the mood a room full of people who really can't be bothered to be there in the first place. You can sense it and see it in everybody's face. They are all projecting the same message: I have got better things to do than to sit here (potentially all day) and waste my time. Small talk is virtually non existent, because everybody is just trying to get it over with and get out of that place with as little mental and physical exertion as possible. Is this the kind of attitude the Justice Department wants for something as important as determining another person's destiny? Well too bad, because that is exactly what they get when you pluck normal citizens out of their busy lives and routines. 

I would hate to imagine the time before we all got smartphones, laptops, and mobile internet. How did we survive the long agony of waiting? Thank heavens I live in such an age of interconnectivity. My iPhone certainly made the wait for my name to be called a much less painful process. And probably for the lot of people in that reception room, mobile broadband alleviated much of the pain of the jury selection process (one can conceivably even get work done.) 

Of course they would then show us the motivational video on why it is so important to perform jury duty. The Hall of Justice really need to upgrade their AV equipment because the television they used to show the video is so old and small that in the large room that is the jury reception, me sitting in the back could barely see anything (which ended up being a good thing.) Perhaps they realize no one pays attention to the video anyways (and the showing of it is just part of the process to just say they did it) so it makes no point to upgrade the television to something bigger. 

I would however welcome the option for those who have seen the video already (meaning have been summoned before) to just skip it. Sadly, there wasn't. 

THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS

My name gets called along with something like 30 other name, and we were then directed to go to courtroom number 13. This is of course the heart and meat of the selection process. Upon walking into the courtroom one thing was immediately clear to me - the counsel the District Attorney's office has sent is brand spanking new straight out of the bar exam (turns out I was right - not even a year this guy has worked in the DA office.) I give him kudos though, as he exuded confidence, and not of the arrogant quality either. Though my advice to him is please don't stand right in the sight line of the court room door and stare right at the lot of people that was coming in for jury selection - it just makes them uncomfortable. 

The case at hand was 14 misdemeanor counts (a mix of disturbing the peace, trespassing, and resisting arrest) against the defendant, who is being represented by a public defender (He haven't even got enough cash to post bail - he stayed upstairs in jail for the duration of the trial.) Now typically for a case like this, the counsels are looking for juries who haven't got any police biases, whether it be in a positive or negative light. Sure enough, during the questioning process, anybody that revealed any strong opinions about police ended up getting excused (lucky!). 

They also excused those that formed conclusions too quickly and would not budge. Before the questioning of potential jurors, the judge read out all counts and charges - so we were all cognizant of just some of the details. It is all too easy then to formulate in our mind, applying ingrained prejudices, a sort of vague conclusion of just went on with the defendant and the charges. It is not wrong of course, just human nature. One does not need to be Sherlock Holmes to begin deducing from the facts (however little it might be) and form some conclusions. However there was those amongst us that kept to those conclusions, which is also not wrong, just not the correct fit for a jury trial. They were dismissed.

I was amongst the first 12 that got to sit on the "jury chairs" - meaning if I was not dismissed by either counsel for being unfit, I would serve for the entire duration of the trial as a member of the jury. My feelings about this was ambivalent: sure I wanted to get out of there as fast I as humanly possible, but I was not about to lie to do it (many casual discussion I have had with people about how get out of jury duty - consensus was lie about your police affiliations because more often than not a case would involve them.) I got one question asked of me, and it was whether or not a man raising his voice and cursing in public is reasonable. I answered that it of course depends on the situation, but if under the right circumstances I don't see how anyone can expect anything different. 

And that was satisfactory enough for both counsels to not kick me out of the jury lot. And so begins the two weeks of listening to evidence and deliberating. 

THE DYNAMICS OF A TRIAL

Nothing shows the beauty of the "innocent until proven guilty" idiom quite like an actual trial. And thank the heavens that I live in a country where such as concept is so. I cannot imagine or even want to know what it is like in countries where it was the opposite. Sure it may ultimately let some that are guilty fall through the cracks (looking at you Casey Anthony), but the main point it to prevent the innocent from being wrongfully charged. After sitting through the trial I came to have a newfound appreciation for the concept. 

Not to disrespect the what has to an enormous workload of the defense attorney, but having the single burden to prove all the charges meant the prosecution had to cover everything, from all angles. I know I am diminishing the task the defense has, but sitting there as a jury made it pretty obvious to me - all the defense have to do is to poke little holes in the prosecution's arguments. It was up to the DA to construct and describe in minute detail exactly what the defendant allegedly did, with witnesses and evidence to support. Cross examination by the defense was brieft and to the point, for all he had to do was introduce doubt about what the DA had just presented. 

Of couse the DA would do well not to torpedo his own arguments. Now I did mention the DA for the trial I sat in was new, barely a year on the job. In one particular witness presentation, he asked a cop on the stand whether or not he thought a crime was committed. The cop said no. That right there completely wiped out any chance of a guilty verdict on the count that it pertained to. During deliberations, almost all the jurors agreed that as soon as the cop said a crime has not been committed, a not guilty verdict popped into our heads. After the trial when speaking to the counsels, the DA lamented and agreed that it was the wrong question to ask. 

Speaking of questions, the most common objection heard from the counsels regarding each other's line of questioning is hearsay, and speculation. Hearsay is when a witness presents testimony in which he or she has no first hand contact or knowledge of, and relied only on what he or she had heard from other parties. For example one of the cops on the witness stand was giving testimony based on a report written by his partner, and not himself. The defense naturally did well to point out this fact and to us, the jury, practically everything the cop said turned to nothing. 

Speculation is when a witness gives testimony on what he or she thinks another person thought about a situation - even if it seems like a reasonable deduction. One cannot speak for what another person thought or felt. Anyways, objections of hearsay and speculation came up so many times throughout the trial that by the second week of testimony, I was able to anticipate the objection even before the counsel spoke up.

I can see why trials can take such a long time now that I have served on a jury: lining up witnesses and asking questions takes a tremendous amount of time. Like jurors, witness have their own lives and work to attend to, and often times have trouble showing up to court to testify at moments notice. If they can't make it to a specific time slot, the trial will just have to be adjourned until a time they can. Questioning takes a long time because while tedious, the prosecution (and the defense for that matter) must be meticulous so not to leave anything out. Something as blatantly obvious as the occupation and duty of a witness must be clearly spelt out - not only to create a clearer picture for the jury, but for the record.

SPEAKING ON THE RECORD

Anything and everything about a trial: procedures, instructions, questioning, testimony, cross examination, etc must be recorded on paper. Every little detail has to be recorded. That burden falls upon the court recorder, who types on what I would like to call a Stephen Hawking machine. The machine allows the recorder to type way faster than any human can with an ordinary keyboard because a few keystrokes on the it will spell out the entire word.

That being said, it is still a lot of stuff to record, and often times the recorder had to ask people to talk slower so that she has time to write down everything. It does get tedious too because paper hand outs such as instructions to the jury by the judge must be entered into the record. The judge had to read every instruction out loud, and the recorder must enter it all (I guess they could not just copy paste.) At one point there was 20 pages of words that the judge read out loud even when half of it was just repeats of the same; all for the sake of entering it into the record.

Which brings me to my point - with all the video recording technology that is available to us, why not film the court sessions instead of typing it down the old fashion way? To think that before the Stephen Hawking machine was invented, people had to type on typewriters and traditional keyboards! I don't think anything will capture the entirely of a trial quite like a video camera. Sure people may worry about the the authenticity and the security of such medium, but if court house are as secure and safe as we like to think it is, then it should be no problem right?

Perhaps clarity of the video and audio may be the concern, but in this golden age of high definition recording, those concerns are unfounded. Now I am not trying to bust court recorders across the nation out of their jobs (though it will probably save them from the displeasure of carpal tunnel syndrome), they certainly have my respects, having to type ceaselessly with such detail. But it would certainly make reviewing records easier. During deliberation when we wanted to hear testimony again, the court recorder comes in and READS it to us out loud. A video footage of the same testimony given would be so much more interactive and easier to view, not to mention you can see the actual emotion of the witness as he or she answers the questions (something you just cannot get from a person reading off a manuscript.) 

YOU’RE PAYING ME HOW MUCH!?

I have gotten plenty of questions about how much do they pay you for jury duty (the stipend, if you will.) Unfortunately, it is not a lot. 17 dollars a day is what the State of California pays its jurors. For me, it ends up breaking even. Parking everyday near the Hall of Justice cost 10 dollars, and the rest of that $7 pays for lunch at the local fast food joint of choice. We do get an hour and a half for lunch, but when you car is impounded at the lot with no in and out privileges, my food options amounted to how far I am willing walk.

Consider yourself tremendously lucky if your employer will pay your salary while you are on jury duty. I am not one of those people.

THE DELIBERATION PROCESS

Jury deliberation process is another marvel to itself. Keep in mind that in a criminal trial, in order to pronounce a verdict (does not matter if it is guilty or not guilty), agreement amongst the jury must unanimous. Otherwise the jury is hung. In my case, we had 12 jurors and 14 counts to all agree on. That task was not easy to say the least.

If you heard they lock the jurors in a room until they come up with a verdict, you would be right. The room is tiny enough just to fit all 12 jurors, with a sink, fridge, microwave, water, and restroom access. Basically no one should have  the need to venture out of that room lest breaking for lunch. A sheriff deputy is on the watch the whole time outside so there is no funny business. Of course this is done to prevent outside tampering, but being inside that room for myself, I think it is also incentive to just get on with it.  

Remember earlier when I said that all the defense had to do was poke holes in the prosecution's case? That concept comes to light in the deliberation process. In order to come up with a guilty verdict, there must be zero doubts that the defendant did that crime. if there is even an inkling of doubt, you the jury must find him or her not guilty of that charge. More often then not the doubt is introduced by the defense; but sometimes doubt also shows up if the prosecution did a poor job of coming up with enough evidence. The often heard "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" sums up this important point.

It is an important point because it made things so much easier during the deliberation process. The judge gives the jury a packet of instructions outlining each count and what points must be satisfied before you can give a guilty verdict. The evidence presented by the prosecution must prove ALL the points as outlined - if anyone one is not proven (or there is doubt that it might not be true), then you must return a not guilty verdict. This material that helps the jury deliberation was a bit of a surprise to me because, and I am sure all the other jurors also (speculation!), I thought we just have a grand old chat about everything based on our notes!

I am glad there is such a system in place, because it really forces the jury to think about everything and not leave anything out. We took a vote before any deliberation had started on the verdicts of all the counts; needless to say after going through the process, practically all the opinions have changed. The process really impose upon the fact that there must be zero doubt for there to be a guilty verdict. 

Now trying to get all 12 jurors to have consensus on all counts took quite the effort. It got to a point where one side had to convince the other side (based on logic and evidence of course) to see it their way. Sometimes in the process of doing that those on one side will switch to the other! Even on counts where it seems as clear cut as day to you, someone will have a differing opinion. By laying out the facts, and carefully thinking it through logically, our jury returned verdicts on 11 our of the 14 counts. We hung on 3 of them because there was one person (the SAME person on all three) who just would not budge on their stance, even though it became blatantly obvious to the rest of us that we were correct on our stance. Oh yeah, things did get a bit heated because the rest of could not fathom just how on earth that one person can see it the other way. But it the end we just let it go because at the end of the day it does not really effect us, whatever the verdict may be.

IN CLOSING

While I do lament the time taken away from my real life, I think serving on a jury duty is something everyone should do once in their lifetime (granted you wouldn't ever want to do it again) It really shows you just how our judicial process works, and gives you a newfound appreciation for it. Consider ourselves lucky that we live in such a country where we get due process (lest you have terroristic aspirations, then you can throw due process out the window!), considered innocent until proven otherwise, and get judged by our peers, not some high reaching overlord.

For sure there has been times I have complained about just slow our judicial process is and how wasteful it is our taxpayers' money. I still stand by it to a degree (looking at you the entire appeals process), but I think ultimately it is worth the time and effort to get things right. 

Together We're Giant - 2011 Giants season preview

By the time this blog post goes live I will already be getting ready to watch my first live Giants game of the season! Thank you coupon codes for $20 dollars seats (against the hated Dodgers no less!). It has been high school since I have watched a Giants game live this early in the season (oh good times). Of course this year is doubly special because the Giants is coming off their World (fcuking) Championship and are on a mission to defend it (there is already torture). 

I quite like the slogan of this year’s ad campaign - together we are Giant. It was much better than last year’s “there is magic inside”. However fitting it end up being as it may, I still think the magic inside slogan is quite cheesy and non to hilarious (as sports advertising should be - all the ESPN Sportscenter ads are very funny). In a way I always admired the Oakland A’s ad campaigns as they are always funny and usually puts their players in impossible situations (Tim Hudson’s pitch is so fast that it altered the space time continuum). I just was not feeling the slow motion style commercials of last year.

This year’s Giants ad campaign so far strikes the perfect cord. It honors fans like us that stuck with them and cheered them on to the championship. Of course those commercials are funny as well (imagine looking into your rear mirror and see Brian Wilson riding in the back, or Buster Posey bum rushing you (keep you pants on ladies) after you’ve closed a sale). I mean hey, a championship ball club deserves a championship level ad campaign.

But enough about the ad campaign. Baseball has been back for a little over a week now, and man has productivity gone down (curse you games for taking 3 hours). But then as any Giants fan would do, you multitask. Have the game on while doing something else and just listen to the broadcast and peak in from time to time (positioning is key). One of the reason baseball is my favorite sporting event is that there is a game literally everyday. Meaning there is also something happy to look forward to - unless the Giants lose then even if the girl you ask to marry said yes, it would still be a bad day. 

The past three days was the Giants first homestand which means all the ceremony of banner raising and rings giving was held. It was like the extension of the parade watching those ceremonies. When the championship banner was hoisted up like a pirate flag, I had chills down my spine. When the players, and especially Kruk and Kuip receive their rings, it was well deserved. When Posey got his Rookie of the Year trophy, he choked up when he thanked his lovely wife (so I don’t know ladies, how much more does a guy have to do to prove that is so far from available on the dating circuit?). It was wonderful seeing the celebration happen, and the fact that the games afterwards were dramatic was the icing on the cake (because not winning during a celebration is so Bonds era type stuff). 

Was sort of disappointed that they did not invite Bengie to the ceremony - seeing as he is just sitting on his ass playing with his kids in his home in Arizona. While giving rings to the Giants hall of famers is a nice gesture (listen, the site of Willie Mac finally get a ring is historic), I sort of hope that after 6 decades of not winning, the Giants would honor more players outside of the hall that played for the organization by giving them rings also (like Boston did back in 2004 when they won the championship for the first time in 86 years). I hope that perhaps they are doing so in private. 

Anyways though now that all the good hoopla is done with and we can finally wave the good vibes of 2010 goodbye, it is time to focus on 2011. Clearly the pitching staff is still tops in the league, though Zito’s two outings so far have been troubling to say the least. In a baseball sense, lefties can survive only having a 86mph fastball (looking at you, the great Jamie Moyer). But what they absolutely must have is location and command - something Zito has been lacking since after the all star break of last year. I understand he is fifth starter and all the pressure is off but did he not work on his game at all? I remember saying back last October that if Zito was any kind of a man, he would try to come back infinite times as hard to prove that he is good contributor to the team. Jury is still out on that one.

Am I the only one that like Zito’s new stache? It reminds of the Office episode when Jim, Dwight, and Michael covertly went to another branch to steal their copier (they wore stache similar to Zito’s as a disguise). 

But yeah other than Zito for now, the rotation and the bullpen is solid. The lineup is looking strong too. DeRosa the super utility man is back healthy. We have Cody Ross for a full season. Panda lost 40 lbs and is looking REALLY good on the plate. Rowand looks to be the best late inning pinch hit replacement guy on the planet (his 12 million dollar salary notwithstanding). Freddy is now hopefully fully healthy, and if so can have a monster year of gettings hits and being on base. Tejada (despite the roids connection) have always been a professional hitter, and he is without a ring so after seeing his teammates get theirs it should fire him up for the whole season. It might still look like a bunch of misfits, but man you can not pay for chemistry for its weight in gold (how is just buying a bunch of guys with talent working out for you eh BOSTON? - hurts me to say this because the AL team I root for is the Redsoxs).

No I did not forget he super rookie Brandon Belt. Sure he is struggling a little right now after the big homerun, but I hope management will see to give him all the time he needs, because from the the brief time I’ve had a chance to look at him, he is going to be a good player. The fact that he has a tremendous eye and can work the count is something that is unique in the Giants Lineup (over the past decade other than the guy name Bonds we have been notorious for being a swing happy team. For that reason alone is worth keeping Belt in the big leagues. Above average fielding and endorsement from Will Clark himself is just extra benefits. I really hope he works out because ever since JT Snow retired, the Giants have been searching for that cornerstone first baseman from the organization. Shoutout to those that came before Belt - the likes of Niekro, Ortmeier, Bowker, and Ishikawa.

And the team is still managed by the smart guy named Bruce Bochy (I am big fan because his head makes mine looks tiny in comparison - and I have a large head). So what more can I say, on paper we have a solid, division winning capable team that is worth watching every single day. This is probably the first year I am not screaming at the team to get a bat, though perhaps this year would be get us a fifth starter that can throw above 90 (is Zito the Todd Wellemeyer of 2011?). 

But there is one shortcoming of the team that I can find - the outfield defense (and Torres just strained his tendon!). I am semi ok with Burrell in left (power hitting that can’t field playing the left field has been a Giants tradition for years, right Barry?), but Huff can’t possibly play the right field well, especially during the home games at AT&T. The problem with the NL is that there is no DH so you can’t just stick guys like Huff or Burrell in that spot. The center fielder will have to cover a lot more room than normally required due to the limited range of the sides. Torres can do it, but do we really want him to have to? 

I guess the problem solves itself once Cody Ross comes back from injury, which brings the bigger conundrum: who are we kicking off the lineup? One would naturally assume Burrell, but as we saw his power is very valuable. My guess would be that between Huff, Burrell, and Ross that it would just be a rotation of sorts with a fine juggling act between starts and off days. And I have confidence in Bochy to do that. Huff should improve to at least average as he acclimates more and more going back to playing the outfield again. I mean a manger should never complain about having too many solid contributors on the team.

It is going to be a good season watching Giant’s baseball - America’s pastime, and the best distraction from “real” life. 

Proposal: how to fix the U.S. budget

Right... like that is going to happen. You know I don't even know why the US government refers to it's budget as a "budget" - everybody knows the spending will be much more than the income! As a business major I have been taught throughout the five years in the program that budgets are suppose to be balanced (not too hard right California?), meaning the outflows have to equal the inflows. No such luck with the US government, where not since the Clinton era have we even seen a positive balance between spending and income.

But what I am saying? Deficit spending is THE american tradition. Hell I have amassed a few credit cards to attest to that fact (all paid off every month in a very Chinese manner mind you). Well clearly the problem is that the US don't pay off the money it spends on credit (except for that interest payment to the "Federal" reserve, which is mighty fat), not because it does not want to, because they can't! The current government as a business don't make a profit! Never mind the fact that the body of governance in this sovereign nation leaves all its monetary matters to a PRIVATE entity (yes, THAT "Federal" reserve). Guess who is making all the profits then? Bankers and Lawyers.

No I am not going to talk about a private entity having more power than an elected government (it is thesis worthy), that is the not the point of today's post. As anybody that watch some glimmer of news knows, the US government is once again deadlock into passing a budget. The rhetoric is plastered all over the place - Liberals wants to do more spending and taxing, while the GOP wants to cut social programs and taxes for the rich and corporations (spending without taxing!). The following is my opinion on what congress should do regarding the budget.

So what happens when you are spending more than you earn (you declare bankruptcy!)? A sane person or business will naturally cut back on the spending and increase in the income to I don't know, BALANCE things out. Inevitably, congress will need to start looking at the US spending and start making some cuts, especially those that takes up a big chunk of the pie (yes California you have set a wonderful example). And the obvious first choice is...

Defense! Defense spending MUST be cut. Why are we still in the Middle East? Are we even winning? Bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan, and man I am telling you the US is going to go there and hunt... oh wait Pakistan has nukes okay never mind. I mean do you actually think US would actually invade Iraq if Sadam actually HAD nuclear weapons? All the WMD talk by the Bush administration was just smoke screen (probably the abili for W to finish the job his father started). As long as your country have nuclear weapons, the US will not dare to invade you! US is not really going to tolerate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and all his farce if IRAN is not enriching their own uranium. The reason we and the rest of the world is turning a blind side to the human tragedy that is North Korea is because - you guess it, they have nukes. Ghadafi over at Libya (which is in the AFRICA and NOT the Middle East people, google maps is the best) is doing it wrong - should have gotten nukes then UN won't dare to impose a no fly zone. 

But come to think of it, what the heck have we been doing since World War II? What the heck is the US fighting for? Sure WWII had two nations threatening to imperialize the world, but what comes after that? Korea is still a divided country (thank you China), with the South being held hostage (next time ROK, you should think about building your capital city a little bit farther than 20 miles from the border you share with your worse enemy). Vietnam was a disaster. First gulf war did nothing. And now we have been stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq for close to a decade with no results. What the heck is the end game? Spreading democracy? What, is the UN chopped liver? the US have better things to worry about at home. Besides, the resent uprisings in the Middle East have proved that democracy is alive and well without the intervention of the US. STOP acting like you are the last bastion of democracy. 

So yes, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and let the locals decide for themselves. The surrounding nations (and the Arab League) will see to it that whatever goes on inside will not affect anybody outside the borders. Besides, those two countries don't have nukes, so breath easy US. Don't give me the fighting terrorism rhetoric, as clearly the CIA and your local TSA agent is doing a fine job. As a matter of fact, pull our troops out of their stations in foreign countries. Get the fuck out of the likes of Japan (Okinawans hate you!), South Korea (right, because having troops there will prevent the North from provoking the South.. oh wait), and Germany (nobody received the memo that Hitler is dead and the wall already fell?). Cut back on manpower, while still invest in technological R&D to stay ahead of the game. Let most of the current troops retired, educate themselves (G.I. Bill!), and contribute to society in a more productive manner (because that my friends will raise the GDP).

Next on the list of cuts is everybody's favorite dead horse to beat on - Social Security and Medicare. First and foremost, it must be made clear that these are NOT entitlements (sorry GOP). These are setup to be insurance trusts - meaning they are self sustaining, and theoretically SHOULD NOT be part of any government's spending budget. In fact up until now Social Security inflows from taxation is actually HIGHER than the amount of premiums it pays out. You know that sizable amount we lose to those two programs in our paychecks every month? Well Social Security and Medicare is suppose to then invest that money into a portfolio of many different things to essentially "grow" the money. That is how these entities sustain themselves. They should not require any government money AT ALL. 

Well turns out bonds put out by the Treasury are also considered investment opportunities in the eyes of Social Security and Medicare. Guess what happens when the government is spending more than it takes in, and are looking for avenues to cover that deficit. That's right, being federal entities they are essentially impelled to invest the majority of their portfolio in government bonds. Because it is just too easy - like borrowing money from your parents. But hey this means that not only is the US borrowing heavily from China, but it is also heavily borrowing from you the working man! The only reason Social Security and Medicare is part of the spending budget is because both are government entities, nothing more. If separated out they are both self sustainable (for the time being anyways) with actual SURPLUSES,

Not honestly going to pare down Social Security and Medicare are you GOP? Again, they ARE NOT entitlements. Cutting down these programs while still borrowing from it is essentially robbing the general public! Now do those programs need reform in order to have long term sustainability? Of course (isn't the joke that my generation won't have any Social Security?)! Stop forcing them to buy treasury stock, let them invest in a diverse portfolio (like banks!) with much higher growth potential, and the problem will fix itself. But you say wait, people are living longer and longer! Social Security in the future cannot possible cover the ever enlarging retirement population (sorry Florida). The problem is not the amount of people, the problem is the COST to sustain them. And the number one cost would be - MEDICAL! Health care cost has sky rocketed in a rate much faster than increase in income. I am willing to bet a lot of it is artificial (hello big corporate drug and insurance companies!). Congress should do something about that, and I believe everything will take care of itself.

I don't think I need to mention at length about fixing the American epidemic of being FAT and its link to medical cost. 

Last thing I want to talk about in terms of cutting spending, is idiotic government subsidies and corporate tax loopholes. Why are we subsidizing things like corn? In fact, while do we have farming subsidies at all? I understand its history, but there is no reason we should still have them in this day and age. Listen, we have enough food in the US. In fact we have a SURPLUS of food (probably the only thing we have a surplus of). That on top of the fact we are a nation of eating too much! So lets make this clear - we make enough food to feed ourselves, and yet we still have subsidies to encourage food production? I understand the reason for keeping the prices low for the general public, but honestly how bad is it going to get if subsidies are done with? People will still buy gas at $4 dollars a gallon! The need for food is inelastic.

Cut subsidies to foreign countries as well. I am pretty sure it is kind of sort of not kosher under WTO regulations. But nonetheless, worry about the home first before helping other people. You don't see corporations making donations when they are not making profits (shareholders won't like that). 

So corporate tax loopholes. This one is easy to figure out. Just go look up the profits for companies like Exxon and General Electric and compare that to the amount of taxes they actually paid. It is an outrage when the US is home to many corporations with revenue that rivals some nation's GDP, yet the US is still crying poor? These corporations should be properly taxed! If a person made $250,000 a year and 33% percent of that went to taxes, there should be no reason that a corporation will have to pay the same rate, if not MORE. Come on congress, the US GDP is still plenty robust. FIx our tax codes, tax our production correctly, and just maybe we will have enough income to support our extravagant spending.

Speaking of taxes, get rid of the Bush tax cuts. How can a nation possibly justify a tax cut when we are in such debt with a negative difference between spending and income? I understand when Bush did it, because the Clinton year brought budget surplus - Bush could not have possibly predicted that after the tax cuts the nation will be fighting two war simultaneously and go through one of the worst economic meltdowns since the great depression. But to extend the Bush tax cuts while we don't have enough money? I don't like paying taxes as much as the person next to me, but since we are a nation of entitlements (but we are not socialist nor communist, no, NEVER), that money have to come from somewhere. I don't see how raising taxes back to pre Bush levels will somehow stop people from functioning as usual. 

So yes, cut spending and raise taxes. Because you the government have no choice when a private entity controls your entire money supply, and whom you owe A LOT of money to.