Global Warming: Myth or Reality?

This is the first in a series of essays on global warming.

I have long maintained that there is not enough scientific data available yet to make a determination about whether carbon dioxide (CO2) is a significant greenhouse gas, and whether anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming actually exists. No one doubts that climate change is an ongoing natural cycle - warming and cooling trends come and go. The question is whether man-generated CO2 has had a significant effect on the natural cycle of climate change.

My major issues with the ongoing hype about global warming are:

• Much of the hoopla about global warming is based on the series of reports by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which thousands of notable engineers and scientists have allegedly endorsed. In fact, the first IPCC report was written by good engineers and scientists, but the Executive Summary was written by advocates - activists who drew incorrect, misleading, and occasionally opposite conclusions from those of the actual authors of the report. The situation was so egregious that some of the original authors resigned in protest and insisted that their names be removed from the report. The IPCC refused to remove their names. Then, a survey of the "thousands" of engineers and scientists who endorsed the report indicated that all but a hand-full had read only the Executive Summary. Their "endorsements" were based on the reasonable, but inaccurate, assumption that the Executive Summary accurately reflected the conclusions drawn in the body of the report. Those who “endorsed” the report had confidence in the competence of the original authors, and they were never made aware of the recantations of many of those authors.

• The “greenhouse effect” is a theory that certain gases in the atmosphere prevent excess energy (mostly light and heat) from being reflected back into space. That heat is therefore trapped and causes the earth's temperature to rise. Global warming advocates maintain that CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas. But, CO2 is a tiny fraction of atmospheric gas – about 0.04 %, or 4 parts in 10,000. The two most abundant atmospheric gases are nitrogen and oxygen, which comprise about 95% - 99% of the atmosphere, depending on local humidity – neither of them are greenhouse gases. The next most abundant gas is water, in the form of water vapor (humidity), clouds, and fog – up to 4%, depending on the climate (desert, temperate, etc.), and water vapor reflects energy, so it would definitely be considered a greenhouse gas. If the greenhouse effect theory is correct, then it logically follows that water vapor, which is 100 times more prevalent than CO2, is a much more important greenhouse gas than CO2. In fact, CO2 would appear to be a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas.

• The most common evidence given for the correlation between CO2 and climate change is the much touted chart in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” movie that tracks both atmospheric CO2 and the earth’s temperature over time. The time scale is huge, usually about 600,000 years, so it is difficult to distinguish the CO2 curve from the temperature curve; but, Al Gore makes it clear in his movie that the two curves roughly parallel each other. His conclusion is that, since temperature changes track CO2 increases or decreases, then CO2 causes temperature change. The fallacy of this conclusion is easily shown by expanding the time scale at any point such that it becomes possible to clearly distinguish the two curves. When the two separate curves can be seen, it becomes evident that the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes, i.e., increases in CO2 happen years (usually hundreds) after the associated increases in temperature. Since cause obviously precedes effect, the CO2 cannot possibly be the cause of the temperature change, and in fact appears to be the effect. Therefore, the graph actually shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

This information begs several questions.

• Assuming the greenhouse theory is correct, isn’t it more likely that, compared to water vapor, CO2 is a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas?
• Don’t the data show that rises in atmospheric CO2 levels are the effect, rather than the cause, of rises in earth’s temperature?
• Is man-caused global warming really happening?
• Why is everyone so excited about CO2?

I reiterate that, to my knowledge, there is as yet insufficient data available to draw firm conclusions about man-caused global warming. Climate change happens over decades, centuries and millennia. Absent some phenomenal breakthrough in climatology, we probably will not know for certain in our lifetimes.

The answer to the underlying issue: “How did the possibility of global warming morph into a full-blown crisis?” is much more complex. Some of the primary considerations are politics in general, the politics of research, and media hype.

Research is all about money. It is very expensive, and someone must fund it. Follow the process:

1. The career success of scientific and engineering researchers depends on getting funding to do their research.
2. Nearly all of the available money comes from the government.
3. Politicians control government budgets.
4. Politicians react strongly to the sensational issues of the moment.
5. Researchers are quick to jump on the issues of the moment because that’s where the money is.

Here’s the subtle part. The money follows the crisis, not the science. If the research concludes there is no crisis, the money dries up. If it concludes either that there is a crisis or that there may be a crisis but more study is needed, then the money flows. Since researchers are rarely absolutely positive about their findings, they continually conclude that more research is needed, which fuels the crisis. Conversely, researchers that fail to add fuel will receive less research money and may be out of a job. Finally, political correctness has run so amuck in our Universities, that a significant number of professors who have questioned global warming have been denied or even lost tenure, and some have been censured, shunned, and even fired.

Politicians have jumped on the global warming issue and have helped to position it as a “crisis”, because nothing is more politically advantageous than a crisis. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to President Obama, has often been quoted as saying, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Politicians are even invading the purview of science and engineering. Al Gore is fond of saying, “The debate is over, and the issue is settled – global warming exists.” Yet no reputable scientist or engineer would ever make such a claim about a phenomenon that happens over millennia and about which we have relatively little data. This political hysteria is apparently bi-partisan, by the way. George Bush and John McCain, neither of whom knows an exponential from an erg, have both signed on.

Oh, let us not forget the media. Crises are of course manna to the press and the media. Blood sells. A sensational crisis attracts many readers/viewers, so the press/media never pass on an opportunity to deliver bad news.

But, why would academics be so enamored with global warming? Why has it become an issue of political correctness? The answer is unpalatable, to say the least. There is a very vocal element of our society, including much of liberal academia, that revels in American failure. Many of these folks fall in the “Blame America First” crowd. Among their favorite targets are capitalism, nationalism, and individualism, the foundations of American success. They believe that the answer is always in a larger, more powerful government, and that the ideal is a one world government. Task number one for them is to diminish America in favor of a “world view”. Their logic, therefore, is: America produces much CO2 , and, since CO2 causes global warming, America is bad, proof of the corruption of capitalism, nationalism, and individualism. Never mind whether CO2 actually causes global warming. Anyone who disagrees with them is politically incorrect. The Blame America First folks comprise a relatively small minority is the U.S., but they are very loud, and they seize on any crisis, real or perceived. Global warming is a perfect foil to generate the hysteria they thrive on.

The vast majority of Americans certainly do not fall into this definition of politically correct. Most Americans are good, hard working, loyal, and patriotic folks. Unfortunately, these good folks are often too busy earning a living and raising families to spend much time critically examining issues like global warming. Consequently, when the press and media are filled with global warming hype and then someone famous or powerful says “Global warming is no longer debatable – the question is settled”, they tend to fall in line (I suspect that Bush and McCain both succumbed to this process). The silent majority is typically too busy to find its voice – until recently, that is. The “Tea Party” crowd is the grass roots silent majority at its best, and, despite the best efforts of some politicians to trivialize them, the silent majority is finally being heard.

So, as an honest scientist and engineer, I don’t know whether anthropogenic climate change really exists, and I certainly don’t know whether our “carbon footprint” really is a significant issue. Both look doubtful to me at this time, but the jury will be out for generations.

Here’s what I do know. In the name of global warming: we are failing to drill for our own plentiful oil and gas; we are not building refineries to produce gasoline from crude oil; we are bankrupting ourselves by paying abusive oil prices to people who hate us and use our money to fund the terrorists who attack us; and, the government now requires us to burn food (ethanol) in our cars.

I agree with those who campaign for alternative energy sources – always a good idea, but not at the expense of everything else. Here’s a thought. How about simply collecting climate change data, a relatively inexpensive effort, and spending most of the enormous global warming research budget on developing practical alternative energy, starting with hydrogen fuel cells?

At this point, there is growing doubt in the scientific and engineering communities that global warming even exists, but there is little doubt that global warming hysteria is destroying us and our economy.

Bankrupting Our Grandchildren

Think about this.

Say you were offered enough money to provide work, heath care, and retirement funds for you and your family. Say there was also enough money to bail out many of your friends so they wouldn’t have to go bankrupt. And say this money was a long term loan collateralized by the future income of your children and grandchildren – you personally would not have to pay any of it back. And say this money was available to everyone else also. All of your lives would be more comfortable and secure. Oh, yeah, one more thing. The debt incurred would be so great that the economy would probably never recover, thereby guaranteeing that yours was the last generation ever to enjoy the American dream.

Would you take the money?

Well, you are taking the money, right now. And so am I. And we are both bankrupting our progeny, and changing America forever. How’s that for hope and change?

Friday Mornings at the Pentagon

Joe Galloway is the co-author, with Lt Gen Hal Moore, of "We Were Soldiers Once ... And Young", one of the very best war novels ever written. If you haven't read it, I highly commend it to you.

I don't know whether the ceremony described in this article still takes place. Perhaps someone who knows can post a comment. Joe wrote this piece back in 2006 - it's now more than three years later, and, to my knowledge, the mainstream press and media are still AWOL.

Friday Mornings at the Pentagon
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers

Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war. Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.

This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who recently completed a yearlong tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.

Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the! Army co rridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.

"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.

This hallway, more than any other, is the `Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew.

Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area.

The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares. "10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.

"A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.
"Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden ... yet.

"Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel.

"Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

"11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt. Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30... Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.

They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along.. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.

"There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-ol! d husban d's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.

These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.

"Did you know that?

The media haven't yet told the story."

Third Party Politics

The nation is rife with third party politics, mostly on the conservative side. The liberals continue to have the Green Party, Ralph Nader, and others, but the new kids on the block are folks who participate in events like the town hall meeting protests, 9.12 rallies, and tea parties. The Obama administration, the Democratic Party leadership, and the mainstream media, have branded these people “gun toting rednecks”, “angry mobs”, and even “domestic terrorists”. The same critics have claimed that these are not grass roots movements, but are in fact staged protests organized by the Republican Party. I’ve attended several of these events, and here’s what I found.

• The attendees were local folks, including many retirees, who were very upset at stuff the government or the congress was foisting on them.
• Virtually everyone I spoke to had never attended a protest before.
• The attendees came on their own, in cars, and were not paid or “organized” by anyone.
• In fact, the only evidence I saw of organizers were liberal counter-protesters who were bussed in by “community organizers” like ACORN and unions like SEIU, many of whom were on the payroll, and who carried commercially made signs.
• The protesters’ signs were obviously home made, and, since they were not organized or controlled in any way, some signs were disappointingly tactless and even offensive.
• The protesters’ voices were passionate, loud, and sometimes angry (people get cranky when they're upset), but there were absolutely no acts or even threats of violence, and there was no indication of “mob mentality”.
• The only gun I ever saw was the TV close-up shown repeatedly by the mainstream media as evidence of "gun toting" - alas, a different camera view showed the gun was actually carried by a black man who was a counter-protester.

There is little doubt this is indeed a grass roots movement by patriotic, freedom loving, salt of the earth, Americans, who have finally found their voice.

Now, let’s talk about protesting. Ever since the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, there have been liberal demonstrators protesting at virtually every significant political or economic gathering. The press, the media, liberals and conservatives alike (and certainly most veterans), have usually agreed that such folks were simply exercising their rights of free speech, and that’s part of what makes America great. Now, suddenly, because the protesters are opposed to the liberal agenda, they are called rabble, Nazis, anti-American, and other slurs, by their own congressmen and senators, and the Democratic Party leadership, including the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States. I think the liberals’ suspicions of a conspiracy may stem from the fact that they are accustomed to Republicans and Independents behaving in a more civil and dignified fashion. Bulletin for Washington: that’s what happens when you ignore folks, regardless of their political affiliation.

So, I think it’s great that these heretofore “silent majority” folks are finally making themselves heard, but where is this all going? Lately, Glenn Beck and some talk radio hosts have been talking a lot about an emerging third party, a tempting but potentially troublesome direction. First of all, does anyone remember who elected Bill Clinton, twice? Ross Perot, that’s who. Clinton never received a majority of the votes, and the 19% of the votes Perot got in 1992 and the 9% he got in 1996, were mostly from fiscal conservatives who would otherwise have voted for Republicans.

The same thing is happening this year in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. In July, Chris Christie, the Republican candidate, was 15 percentage points ahead of Jon Corzine, the Democrat. Then Chris Daggett, a fiscal conservative third party Independent candidate, entered the race. Now, a week before the election, Corzine’s numbers are essentially the same, Christie has lost about 15% and Daggett has gained about 15%. You do the math. If the Democrat is re-elected, the third party Independent, Daggett, will have elected him.

In New York’s 23rd Congressional District, an off-election year race was precipitated by President Obama’s appointment of Democrat Congressman McHugh as Secretary of the Army, and the third party candidate is winning. Although the polls still show 19% undecided, meaning anything could happen, Conservative Party candidate Hoffman is 5 points ahead of Democrat Owens, and 20 points ahead of Republican Scozzafava. Several Republican luminaries, including Sarah Palin, have endorsed Hoffman over the Republican candidate on the grounds that the Republican is insufficiently conservative. If Hoffman, the third party candidate, wins this race, it will not only be a victory for conservatives, but a significant defeat for Obama, who has actively stumped for Owens.

Proponents of a conservative third party hail mostly from the Republican right. They feel that the Republican Party, in an effort to woo independents, has moved too far left. More traditional Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, believe the party should be more inclusive and open, welcoming anyone who is supportive of basic Republican tenets like small government and minimal taxes, regardless of their specific positions on issues like abortion and gay rights.

By pushing his far left liberal agenda, President Obama may have ironically done more to encourage conservative third party politics than anyone. Obama’s political handlers were no doubt thrilled to see the emergence of a conservative third party, anticipating Ross Perot redux, but the irony may backfire. President Obama was elected by Independents who were dissatisfied with the Bush administration (Who wasn’t?). These Independents voted for Candidate Obama who ran as a unifying centrist, but they got President Obama, who actually turned out to be a divisive leftist. Many of these same Independents are also disaffected with the Republican Party, and may well be attracted by a potential breath of fresh air in the form of a new party.

A viable third party may emerge, but it cannot do so without splintering the conservative ranks. The shadow of Ross Perot looms large unless the third party can somehow morph into a home for a substantial number of centrists and/or liberals in addition to its core conservatives.

Marine Corps Video

This video will give you a taste of why we love the Corps so - makes me wish I was 17 so I could sign up again.

Decriminalize Street Drugs

Ok, my conservative friends, take a deep breath and think about this a little before you have apoplexy. My libertarian roots are sprouting, and I ask that you not stifle them too quickly. Give me a page or two to make my case. This is such a visceral topic that I am unlikely to change anyone’s mind, but it might be interesting for you to learn another viewpoint.

Before I get to the technical arguments, a little perspective might be in order. President Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and coined the phrase, “War on Drugs” in 1973. President Eisenhower had created a committee to stamp out narcotic street drugs 20 years before that, and “Reefer Madness” came out 20 years before that, during the Great Depression – all of which begs the question, “How’s it working?” Well, let’s see. We probably all agree that one of our greatest concerns regarding street drugs is their impact on kids. So how has the War on Drugs impacted kids’ use? Marijuana, cocaine, crack, meth, and whatever the current craze is, are all readily available in High Schools and even Middle Schools; and, in poll after poll, kids indicate that it is much easier to get drugs than booze. If we check out adults, we find that the use varies greatly by how “hard” the drugs are, but the levels of use have remained relatively stable or grown a little for 30 years or so. By any measure, the War on Drugs has been an abysmal failure. It is lost, and perhaps it’s time for a new strategy.

Now, the engineer in me demands a few numbers.

• Depending on the prison, between 50% - 75% of the 2.3 million U.S. prisoners are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses.
• Since the cost of incarceration is roughly $22,000 per year per prisoner, U.S. taxpayers spend approximately $30,000,000,000 per year (that’s 30 billion dollars) to keep non-violent drug offenders in prison.
• Additionally, the cost of investigating, arresting and prosecuting each drug offender is about $50k, and, since there are approximately 500,000 drug convictions per year, that’s another $25,000,000,000 ($25 billion) out of the taxpayers pockets, not counting the cost of investigating and trying the ones who get off, or never get caught.

That’s a total of around $55,000,000,000 ($55 billion) per year we spend, to accomplish what? Apparently, declaring a War on Drugs is roughly equivalent to declaring war on ants and gnats. It may be a good idea, but no one really knows how to do it.

So, if we can’t win the war, what would happen if we just admit defeat? What would happen if we decriminalized drugs? Let’s see.

• Farmers could grow and companies could process and package the drugs at a fraction of the current street costs, a benefit to farmers and the creation of legal, taxpaying companies and jobs.
• Since the South American, Central American, Mexican, and Asian drug cartels could never compete, they would go out of business, at least in the U.S. – just like moonshine can’t compete with commercial liquor.
• Additionally, organized crime would lose its most profitable business.
• We could regulate the drugs like we do liquor and cigarettes, so the quality and strength of the drugs would be standardized, thus making them much safer.
• We could tax the sale of drugs, thereby generating a government income on what is now a huge financial drain.
• We could set very high penalties for selling drugs to minors (and do the same for booze and cigarettes, by the way).
• Even though adult possession would be decriminalized, juvenile possession could remain an offense, similar to the way possession of alcohol is now.
• Lastly, in addition to relieving the overcrowding, there are some other benefits to the prison sytems:
- since the prisons would be 2/3 empty, we could really concentrate on controlling the violent criminals and gangs that remain; and
- we could try creative ideas like having white collar criminals serve their time by working with addicts.

I know someone out there is screaming, “But the use of drugs would explode – there would be a national epidemic of addiction”. Really? Right now, any adult can get any drugs they want on the street, but only a small percentage do. Ask yourself if you would start using heroin or cocaine. I doubt it. Most adults understand the dangers inherent in drug addiction, and would avoid it, just as they do now. If we decriminalize street drugs, those that don’t currently use probably won’t use; and, those that do currently use, will continue to use. Ok, the use of marijuana would no doubt increase, probably with a commensurate decrease in alcohol consumption, the net effect of which would be the elimination of many hangovers.

We could begin a campaign stressing the negative impacts of hard drugs on your life – similar to the anti-smoking campaigns. It’s critical that we not revert to the hokey claims about marijuana leading to harder drugs (if marijuana leads to hard drugs because it is used first, then so do booze, cigarettes, soda, and even milk). We should stress the negative impacts of hard drugs on your career, earning capacity, family relationships, and health – it’s just stupid to use hard drugs.

Now, what about those empty jails and all that money we saved and the new tax money? Well, to begin, we could use it to fund rehabilitation centers and halfway houses. We could send addicts to rehab instead of sending them to the crime and gang schools that are our current prisons. We might even be able to use some to feed the hungry and house the homeless.

Presidents since Ford have convened blue ribbon panels to study this issue, and panel after panel has concluded that decriminalization is the most prudent solution. Even a conservative blue ribbon panel led by William F. Buckley reached a similar conclusion. So why haven’t Presidents listened? Simply because they’re petrified of the conservative backlash.

Look, the U.S. tried to criminalize liquor during prohibition. This was a War on Booze. During prohibition, those who drank before continued to drink, and those who did not drink before continued not to drink. The only differences were that the cost of booze sky-rocketed, we made criminals out of ordinary citizens just because they wanted a drink, and we created the largest crime syndicates in our history. The War on Drugs has been as great a failure as was the War on Booze.

But, all is not lost. We can’t win the War on Drugs, but we can come to grips with it, if we deal with the problem exactly the same way we dealt with the War on Booze.

A Fish Story

My wife, Ginny, and I are fortunate enough to spend our summers on a beautiful lake in New Hampshire. A while back, Ginny’s college roommate, Barb, came all the way from California with her family for a visit. They arrived late morning, and Barb and Ginny immediately started catching up, Barb’s three grown daughters headed for the beach, and Barb’s folks, who had also joined us, retired for a nap. But Barb’s husband, Tom, is a fisherman. His opening words were, “Hi, Joe. How’s the fishing here?” I set him up with a tackle box, a spinning rod, and a suggestion that the deadwood stump off the point would be a good place to start, and I left on an errand.

When he opened the tackle box, Tom, being a good fisherman, immediately spotted my “Sebago Special” lure. This is a curved piece of stainless steel with three treble hooks, one at the top, one in the middle, and one at the end, and it looks like sweet manna to big fish. In short order, Tom had caught a few nice bass, and he settled in for a great day of fishing.

An hour or so later, Tom hooked a corker of a pickerel. Well, pickerel are great fighters, and Tom was in fisherman Nirvana. When he finally landed the fish, he found that the pickerel was no where near ready to give up. It flipped and flopped into the blueberry bushes, tangled the line, and then flipped back onto the sand, and Tom spotted his chance to pin the monster down with his foot. It was a big pickerel, but no match for Tom’s 180 lbs, and Tom relished his moment of victory. He savored the view of that beautiful fish on the bottom hook, and the Sebago Special and its other two hooks gleaming in the sparkling sunlight.

As Tom reached down to unhook him, the pickerel burst into another thrashing fit, and the center hook snagged Tom’s sneaker. Oh, well, no one ever said fishing was easy, but a veteran fisherman handles such complications with ease. Tom wasn’t a bit flustered. Like a real pro, he grabbed the needle-nosed pliers, planning to unhook his sneaker, being very careful, of course, not to damage that amazing lure. But the pickerel was not done yet. Oh no! As Tom reached down, the powerful beast gave a mighty heave, slipped out from under the sneaker, wriggled his head, and flung the top hook into Tom’s thumb.

What a lure! My Sebago Special had simultaneously snagged a pickerel, an Adidas, and a Californian! The pickerel, of course, was even less happy than Tom with this development and continued to thrash about thus causing the other two hooks to sink even deeper. Tom, ever the intrepid fisherman, immediately recognized the seriousness of his predicament, and began to scream for help. The wives and daughters, meanwhile, were happily immersed in girl talk, and interpreted Tom’s painful supplication as a joyful outburst.

Thankfully, after a few minutes of continuous cries, Barb became suspicious, suspecting that even a really nice fish would not cause an outburst of that duration. By the time she and Ginny went to check on Tom, the situation had deteriorated into a fully developed calamity. The fish was flopping, the hooks were digging, and Tom was doubled over trying to pin down the thrasher. He screamed at Barb, “Cut something!” Well, eventually the girls rescued Tom, the sneaker, and the pickerel (who, by the way, probably still regales his fish friends about the time he caught the big Californian), but my amazing lure remained steadfastly imbedded in Tom’s thumb.

So, Ginny, Barb, and Barb’s dad, Charley, now delightedly awake, set out in Ginny’s jeep to rush Tom’s thumb to the ER. In route, Tom was torn between cursing Ginny for choosing the bumpiest road in North America, and begging her to hurry before he expired from pain. Charley, meanwhile, mildly amused by all the carryings on, passed the time browsing through the Book of Common Prayer he had found in the back seat (every good Episcopalian keeps a BCP close at hand). However, as the chaos around him increased, Charley, ever the sensitive father-in-law, began to ponder whether he should do his part to add to all the fun. Suddenly, Ginny hit a big bump, Tom screamed that she was killing him, and Charley brilliantly spotted the solution to everything. It was right there in front of him in the BCP. Charley seized the moment. He commiserated with Tom, and offered to salve his misery and ease his pending demise. Charley then sonorously began to read passages from the “Prayers at the Time of Death”. As Charley “prayed”, and Tom moaned, Ginny and Barb were laughing so hard they almost ran over two deer, a tractor, and a hay wagon.

It was only in hindsight that Tom fully appreciated the humor of that moment, but he swears that, even in the throes of disaster, he remained in awe of the Sebago Special.

And, that’s a true story, more or less.

Alacrity

At the end of August, General McCrystal requested more troops in Afghanistan, clearly stating that the outcome of the war is at stake. Six weeks have passed, and, now, it seems the President needs another month or two to consider whether to comply with the General's request.

Doesn't it seem a little odd that, even though the issue has plagued us for 25 years or so, the President has warned us that we need to pass health care reform immediately, without ever posting the legislation for public comment (anyone remember Candidate Obama promising that all legislation would be posted for 5 days, allowing public comment before it was passed),and without most of the legislators ever having read it (btw, according to WH Press Secretary Gibbs, neither has the President). This health care "crisis" is just the most recent in a list of "crises" (Stimulus, Bail Outs, etc.) that have demanded immediate attention, and added trillions of dollars to our National debt in only 8 months!

Many of us have called for a stop to this Crisis Management style of government. We want Congress and the administration to slow down, to take time to think about it, to have a national debate, to work out the details, to craft compromises. Yet their only response has been, "There's no time - we must act NOW!"

How is it then, that the President has decided that General McCrystal's urgent request will be dealt with slowly and deliberately. Let me tell you a couple things I learned in the Marines. First, war is by its very nature one crisis after another, each of which demands immediate attention and definitive action. The worst possible personality lapse in military leadership is indecisiveness. I've been around Marines now for nearly 50 years, and I've only known one indecisive Marine Corps officer.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President's job is to set national military policy and ensure that the military has all the support it needs to successfully accomplish its mission. During wartime, the President responds to military requests by first seeking counsel from his National Security staff, the Joint Chiefs, and his Generals in the field, and then making decisions and acting in a timely fashion. Instead of doing the job he has sworn to do, President Obama is polling, testing the waters, feeling out his left wing base, seeing which way the winds of public support are blowing, and otherwise dithering on General McCrystal's request.

I wish he would reverse his priorities, and dither a little on health care, cap and trade, etc., and show a little real leadership on this truly critical military issue. Remember, President Obama has clearly stated on many occasions that "Afghanistan is the good war." This is his war with his hand picked General. If he really wants to win, he needs to act like it. We need a Commander-in-Chief, not a politician.

Regarding The Fair Tax

I may have lost part of my mind, but, thank God I still have a wife. Ginny reminded me that, in The Fair Tax piece, I forgot to mention that the economists have calculated the 23% rate as exactly revenue neutral. In other words, the 23% Fair Tax would generate the same income as all those other federal taxes that will be eliminated combined. Naturally, the percentage would be revisited as part of the federal legislative process, just as all the other tax rates are now.

The Fair Tax

I have read three books on The Fair Tax, two pro and one con. For the life of me, I cannot imagine why the entire nation doesn’t stand up and yell, “Switch us to the Fair Tax, NOW!” I’m pretty sure that nearly everyone (except some politicians, but more on that later) who has actually read the books and understands the Fair Tax will agree with me.

One of the things that makes the Fair Tax unique is that it was developed by economists, not politicians and lobbyists – what a concept! This is a truly bi-partisan issue. Everyone benefits. The pending legislation has many sponsors from both sides of the aisle. In fact, it is one of the few bi-partisan issues out there – it gives the politicians something to agree on for a change. The Fair Tax addresses how we collect the taxes necessary to run our government. Naturally, how those taxes are spent is and always will be a partisan issue.

This is not a Flat Tax which is simply another form of income tax. The Fair Tax replaces income tax.

The Fair Tax

Here’s how it works. First, abolish all federal individual and corporate income, payroll, capital gains, estate, alternative minimum, social security, medicare, interest, and dividend taxes, as well as any other taxes on income. While you’re at it, abolish the IRS. Those notions alone ought to have you cheering.

There would be no tax forms, filing, deductions, adjustments, or loopholes. No one files.

Now institute The Fair Tax (legislation is pending), a 23% national retail sales tax on everything - everything – goods and services, taxed once and only once, at the retail level. If you buy a new car, you pay the 23% national sales tax on the purchase amount. If, as the years go by, five other folks buy the same car down the line, they do not pay the national sales tax. The tax is only applied once, the first time the product is sold at the retail level – future sales are not taxed. The tax applies to services as well as goods. If a plumber comes to your house, a lawyer prepares your will, or a doctor stitches you up, his/her bill includes 23% on both materials and time. The States collect the taxes, just as most of them now collect sales taxes.

Since you no longer pay income or payroll taxes, the only deductions from your paycheck will be for insurance and 401k or any other voluntary deductions. You get an immediate raise equal to the amount of income and payroll (FICA) tax that is now deducted from your pay.

All federal government agencies and services (except the IRS) remain the same.

Remember that, at least at this point, the proposed legislation applies to federal taxes only. All state and local taxes would remain the same, although many economists feel that state and local governments might very well follow suit.

Sacred Cows

At this point, there are several issues that immediately come to mind.

Is the tax progressive? Of course it is. The more income people have, the more new stuff they buy, and the more services they use, so the more tax they will pay. Remember that the Fair Tax does not apply to used stuff, and you do not pay any Fair Tax on used stuff or work you are able to do for yourself.

What about poor people? The proposed Fair Tax legislation includes a rebate for every tax paying family or person. The size of the rebate will depend on the size of the family and would equal the amount of Fair Tax due on the poverty level income for that family size. For example, if the poverty level income for a family of two is $20,000, that family would receive 23% of $20,000, or $4,600. The rebate would go to all taxpayer families or individuals, regardless of their actual income. Since poverty level folks actually earn the poverty level income or less, they would get a 100% refund of all of the Fair Tax they pay. Therefore, they pay no tax. Currently, such folks do not pay income tax, but they do pay payroll (FICA) tax, so they clearly will be better off.

What about Charities? Will people stop giving to charities? People are glad to get a deduction for the money they give to churches and other charities, but they do not give the money because of the deduction. Want proof? Ok, try this. Currently, if you’re in the 25% income bracket and you make a charitable donation of $1,000, you will get a tax refund of 25% of $1,000, or $250. I can easily beat that deal. If you give me the $1,000 instead, I’ll give you $500 back, a 100% improvement. Naturally, none of you will give me the $1,000, because I don’t deserve it. Folks give money to charities because they deserve the money, not because of the deduction.

What about the cherished mortgage deduction? Under the Fair Tax, you pay no income tax, so there is nothing to deduct from. Besides, you get to keep your whole paycheck, so you have more money available anyway. Which would you rather have – all of the income and FICA tax you currently pay or 25% (or whatever bracket you’re in) of your mortgage payment.

Ancillary Benefits

Here are just a few of the other, somewhat delightful, benefits of the Fair Tax.

• Everybody pays. Tourists from other countries, illegal immigrants, diplomats, DRUG DEALERS, and even the greedy scion who somehow manages never to pay any income tax in spite of his massive wealth – everybody who buys anything new or hires any service providers pays to support our government.

• Corporations will return to America. Many corporations have established overseas headquarters in order to avoid paying the 41% corporate income tax rate in the U.S. (the second highest in the world - only Japan is higher). Surveys of executives of such companies indicate an overwhelming desire to return, if the corporate taxes were not so abusive. Check out The Irish Miracle on the internet.

• Each of us is in charge of how much tax we pay. If you wish to pay less tax, you can simply buy only used stuff and do things yourself instead of hiring someone.

• Since we will not charge Fair Tax on good sold overseas (those countries will charge their own taxes on our goods), American goods will be more competitive and sell better. However, we will charge Fair Tax on new foreign items sold here.

• Here’s one of the best benefits: many lobbyists will be out of a job, provided the Fair Tax legislation insists (as it currently does) that there are absolutely no exceptions to which goods or services are subject to the Fair Tax. Every new purchase and every service is subject the the Fair Tax, no exceptions. As soon as you allow one exception, the lobbyists will be back in business trying to get their clients’ goods or services excepted.

Opponents

Some of our less scrupulous politicians are the primary opponents of the Fair Tax because it replaces the income tax, and they use income tax issues to attract (bribe) potential voters and donors. For example, “If you vote for me, I’ll decrease your taxes and increase the other guy’s taxes”, or, “If you donate to my campaign, I’ll introduce loophole legislation that will decrease your taxes.” How many times have you heard that stuff? (The fact that these politicians are against it is proof enough for me that it is a good idea.)

The associations that represent service trades and professions are also sometimes initially opposed. Lawyers, plumbers, doctors, carpenters, engineers, electricians, accountants, – none of them want to be required to increase their fees by 23%. However, once they understand how the Fair Tax works, their opposition usually fades. The reality is that their current fees already include the income taxes paid by all the workers who produced the equipment and supplies they use, and their current fees also include the income tax they themselves pay. These are called “imbedded costs”, and, on average, they are equal to the 23%. So, trades-people and professionals will not be increasing their fees at all. They will simply be replacing the 23% imbedded costs with the 23% Fair Tax. The other complaint often voiced by service folks is that they do not want to be burdened by calculating, collecting, and paying the Fair Tax. Actually, this effort will be much easier for them than the current system. The service folks will simply add 23% to each invoice, and then send 23% of their total revenues to the government – way easier than figuring out corporate income tax, their personal income tax, and their employees’ withholding, FICA, etc. Again, details are available at fairtax.org or in the Fair Tax books.

Conclusion

Ok, that’s enough for now. The details can become complex and even tedious, but it's well worth the effort to learn and understand the Fair Tax. If you want more detail, go to www.fairtax.org. (note that it is .org, not .com.) Alternatively, you can read The Fair Tax Book, Linder and Boortz, and/or Fair Tax: The Truth, Linder and Boortz.

Someone out there must disagree with me, and we will all learn more if a debate ensues, so post your comments below.

A Proposed New National Strategy

I cannot describe how distressing it is for me to write that the U.S. government is not trustworthy, but I do believe it is true. And, since the U.S. government is run by politicians that we elect, I believe we are responsible for its actions. When we say the U.S. government, we are not referring to “them” - we are we referring to “us”. Therefore, we are responsible for all the broken promises and treaties over our nation’s history. Pages would be required to recite all the instances. Just in my lifetime:

• we promised to provide Close Air Support to the displaced Cubans at the Bay of Pigs, but we broke our word and they consequently suffered a horrible defeat;
• we broke our word when we bailed on the South Vietnamese, and then we promised we would supply their army with arms and supplies as needed, but we broke our word again, and they suffered more than a million casualties at the hands of the communists;
• we promised to support freedom fighters in several Central American countries facing communist takeovers during the 1970s and 1980s, but we broke our word;
• after the first Iraq War, we promised to support any Iraqis who revolted against Saddam, but, we broke our word and did not support Iraqi uprisings in both the North and the South;
• in the second Iraq war, we promised to stay in Iraq until they had established an effective government, police force, and military (and that may actually happen since it appears that the 2008 surge has worked), but President Obama has made it clear that we are pulling out whether the surge works or not – even if pulling out means breaking our word; and,
• we promised a missile shield to Poland, the Czech Republic, and other former Soviet block nations, but, last month we changed our mind, and broke our word.

Even the U.S. government does not trust the U.S. government. The most recent example involves the CIA, an integral part of the government. After 9-11, we started an all-out campaign to protect ourselves from future attacks. This included a large increase in the number of CIA spies, and very clear boundaries regarding the types of interrogation techniques that were allowed. Those techniques were vetted by the politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers in the Administration, the Congress and the CIA hierarchy. Now, 8 years later, a new Administration comes in and the new Attorney General has decided to investigate the CIA interrogation techniques and who knows what else. CIA and related government personnel may now be prosecuted by the government that ordered them to do the work and assured them of its legality. The CIA, a U.S. government agency, cannot trust the U.S. government to keep its word. Who’s next? The military, no doubt – several left-wing congressmen have been maneuvering to open or re-open investigations into so-called military “atrocities” in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. The bottom line is that the very people who risk their lives to protect us cannot trust the government that sends them into harm’s way – oh, whatever administration sends them may be ok, but, as soon as a new crowd gets in, it’s Katie bar the door.

In all of these instances, there is a common pattern: one administration makes a promise, and then a new administration breaks the promise. Naturally, the new administration always has a rational argument for breaking the government’s word, but, however well the rationale sells to the media, it always leaves someone out there hanging. I believe that nothing is more sacred than a person’s word. I’ve broken my word exactly once in my life, 30 years ago, and I remain deeply ashamed – it haunts me. My country breaks its word at the drop of a new congress or a new administration.

By the way, our enemies know this and it is a key factor in their strategies. They know they cannot defeat us on the battlefield, but they don’t have to. They simply have to stay in the fight long enough for new American politicians to bail on our promises and give up.

Our friends also know it, and their intelligence gathering agencies are very hesitant to share information with us, knowing that sooner or later the intelligence is likely to be leaked by our politicians or someone in our government.

All of this is shameful, of course, and I don’t know how to fix the problem – it’s just too vast and complex. I think it may be part and parcel of the democratic process. Politicians are and should be elected independently and they do not feel bound by the promises of their predecessors. In fact, they often run on a platform of undoing the commitments made by their predecessors. Each congress and administration is independent of the prior ones. I certainly don’t want to change our democratic system, so, I guess I just have to accept that America has not been, is not, and will not be, true to its word. Ugh.

If I’m right and America is not trustworthy, perhaps we need to completely revise our national strategy to conform to this harsh truth. Rather than double-crossing the brave young intelligence agents and military men and women who protect us, perhaps we should

• reconsider the conditions under which we send troops into harm’s way in the first place,
• revise the consequences of leaking classified information to the media or press, and,
• enact black letter laws protecting intelligence and military personnel from prosecution by future administrations who re-interpret the law.

The following proposals may or may not be the exact directions we need to follow, but they are indicative and they are certainly better than the disastrous path we are currently on. Here are some examples of actions we can take:

On foreign policy:

If you attack us or those we are sworn to protect, or if you harbor those who attack, or, if we have cause to believe you harbor those who attack, we will respond with devastating force.

We will use various forms of air and naval power in “devastation attacks” to destroy your roads, bridges, power plants and transmission lines, telecommunications facilities, factories, refineries, fuel depots, military bases, dams, railroads, and ports.

We will accomplish this in a matter of weeks and then we will stop.

We will provide you with 72 hours notice before our first strike, in order to give you time to remove any innocents from harm’s way. If you insist on hiding behind women or children or hospitals, then you are responsible for their deaths and injuries.

We will act quickly, decisively, and unilaterally, and we will not seek permission or support from any other nation or organization.

If you persist in your terrorist activities after two devastation attacks, we will come into your nation with troops and we will hunt down and kill the anti-American leadership. Then we will leave.

We will not send in troops to help you with the anarchy that is certain to follow destruction of your infrastructure. There will be no “boots on the ground”. If you would like troops to help you deal with the aftermath, ask the U.N. We won’t come.

We will cease providing any foreign aid to any nation that we suspect of harboring terrorists or that advocates harm to us. If you want aid from us, then act like our friends. If you choose to adopt an anti-American stance, then seek aid from someone else.

We will continue to support freedom-loving people in their revolts against totalitarian regimes. We will seek to organize coalitions in favor of supporting the revolts. We will supply troops on the ground, but only long enough to depose the dictators. Once the dictators are deposed, other nations in the coalition will have to supply the nation-building forces.

On domestic policy:

If you divulge or leak any classified information to the media or press, you will be prosecuted, regardless of your position, and you will serve a minimum of five years in the general population of a high security prison.

If you follow any order or policy or rule that you understand to be lawful, you will not be prosecuted by later administrations under their re-interpretations of laws, policies, or rules.

We will use active duty troops to protect our borders and ports from illegal immigration and terrorists.

Seem a little draconian? Well, up to now we have adopted a much more humanistic position. We can all see how well that has worked. America is seen as weak and untrustworthy, even by our allies. Politicians regularly leak classified information for purely political reasons. The surest way to divulge a secret is to tell it to a congressional oversight committee. We prosecute the very men and women who protect us. Terrorists enter our country at will. Our military is badly over-stretched. Equipment is deteriorating, and many of our troops rotate in and out of combat every year or so, sometimes less. The health, personal lives and families of our troops have suffered greatly. Enough!

It is time to stand up. It is time to honor our forefathers and our brave patriots who have fallen in defense of freedom around the world. It is time for us to act like the world’s only superpower instead of apologizing for it. It is time to remind the world of the stuff Americans are made of. It is time for Americans to take back America. This is our country - it belongs to no administration or congress. It is time to elect leaders, not politicians. It is time to act.

About the "Humor" Blogs

I know that not all of you agree that my humor is in fact humorous. I get it. On the other hand,lots of folks actually do think it's funny, and they like to see it on the blog.

So, once a week or so, I'll post a humorous piece - some of them new, some of them recycled. The next piece, on "natural" gas, was a favorite when I distributed it last Spring.

By the way, if you like any particular essay, you can find this blog's essays on the same topic simply by clicking on the word or phrase following "Labels" at the bottom of the essay. For example, if you click on "Humor" at the bottom of this note, all of the humorous essays will pop up.

Old Men and the Wonders of "Natural" Gas

Ever heard the phrase, “old and farty”? It’s kind of a cliché, maybe even a stereotype. Ok, I know we’re not supposed to stereotype people, but it seems to me that stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason – don’t they? In any case, as I get older, I definitely get gassier, and I’ve got plenty of Medicare-card-carrying friends in the same boat.

So, being a good engineer (I’m old, not feeble), I determined to make the best of the situation. I know the following is a bit of a smelly proposition that could get blown out of proportion, but hear me out.

All mammals are flatulent, but old men seem to be especially afflicted (this may in some strange way be related to the dietary preferences of old men). The primary gas in mammalian flatulence is methane, which, by the way, is odorless and tasteless (it’s those nasty trace gases like hydrogen sulfide that offend), and methane is a wonderful source of energy. It burns cleanly and is an efficient fuel. It can be used directly in vehicles or it can be used to make electricity.

So, isn’t it obvious? Old men are our greatest untapped natural resource!

All we need to tap this resource are local and regional gas collection centers. Many of the details have to be worked out, but some of the salient elements of these centers would be:

• an abundant supply of beer, beans and Mexican food, nicely complimented with an onion soup appetizer;
• a comfortable setting (Lazy-Boy recliners come to mind) to facilitate high level discussions of sports, the way things used to be, war stories, and the unfathomable complexity of feminine wiles and attributes;
• large TVs and a complete set of John Wayne movies – high level discussions can be debilitating and require periodic down time; and
• a built-in central vacuum system strategically located in the seats of the recliners.

Being the selfless patriots that we are, I predict that most of us old men would agree to provide this service to our fellow man in exchange for a nominal honorarium, say a wide screen LCD with a premium subscription to Direct TV.

Think of the benefits!

• To national security: no more dependence on foreign oil, and a permanent supply of low cost energy.
• To the economy: the proceeds from the sale of the methane could be used to bail out Social Security and Medicare and return them to solvency.
• To male senior citizens: enhanced self esteem resulting from the productive use of a heretofore constant source of criticism.
• To spouses of male senior citizens: what can I say, the benefits are inestimable!

Letter From an MD on Proposed Health Care Reform

Hi folks,

I personally called the number listed in this letter and confirmed that the letter is genuine and that the author is an MD. I commend it to you all.

For my own comments on health care issues, simply click on "health care issues" at the end of Dr. Hess' letter.

Joe

September 23, 2009

Representative Ann Kirkpatrick
1123 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congresswoman Kirkpatrick:

Over the past few months I have followed with great interest the debate about health care that has been unfolding in Washington, D.C. My interest led me to read HR 3200 in its entirety. The 1000 plus page House bill is a convoluted legal document that I suspect even my good friends at Arent & Fox LLP on K Street don’t understand.

Being both board certified in Internal Medicine and in Cardiovascular Disease and having practiced in both the academic and private sectors, I feel that I have some knowledge related to the issues that have been debated. In addition, my wife, Pamela Jones, holds a Master Degree in Healthcare Management from Duke University and has over twenty years of healthcare experience, consulting with large hospital systems and physician groups. Our collective observations and opinions are outlined below:

1. "Primum non nocere" – At the time a medical student examines his first patient, he is reminded constantly of the wisdom: “First do no harm”. It is a warning that Congress should itself heed. It is unfathomable to me that those in Congress believe they have the knowledge, experience, and wisdom to completely overhaul the manner in which payment for medical services is provided. This is especially appalling when, in fact, few in Congress have any medical experience what so ever. For instance, Senator Max Baucus of the Senate Finance Committee, is an attorney, with no experience in providing direct medical care or in working in the medical industry (such as a hospital administration, health insurance, pharmaceuticals, etc.) Yet, despite this lack of ‘hands on’ experience, Senator Baucus has just released a healthcare proposal every bit as overreaching as the ones currently in the House. Whenever I am asked what I think of the Congress ‘overhauling’ healthcare, I tell people: “It would be like having a group of cardiologists overhauling the air traffic control system of America. Would you want that to happen?”

Representative Ann Kirkpatrick
September 23, 2009
Page Two

The fact that Congress has undertaken such an endeavor in an expedited manner indicates to me a degree of hubris that is unlike any I have ever witnessed. By proceeding in this fashion Congress will undoubtedly produce an outcome far worse than the original problem itself.

2. Law of Unintended Consequences – Everyone agrees that there are issues related to the affordability, portability, and accessibility of health insurance. But what no one knows or can predict is the consequences of the proposals now before Congress. Why would the members of Congress believe they could create major changes to 17% of the nation’s economy and perfectly predict the outcome one will get – the outcome as to cost of care, quality of care, and accessibility of care?

Just for discussion lets take the issue of accessibility of care. Using the president’s estimates of 30 to 45 million uninsured people, what will happen when they suddenly have access to care? There are not enough doctors, nurses, or allied healthcare personnel to care for a 10 to 15% increase in patient volume. Yet, nowhere in the discussed proposals is this question addressed. It takes ten or more years to change the medical educational system to produce more physicians. Recently, when this ‘manpower shortage’ was questioned in the media, those in favor of a major overhaul have argued that there would be no major increase in utilization because the majority of the uninsured are young and healthy. If that is the case, why is it a crisis to change healthcare in such a rush to insure these healthy youngsters?

We caution you that the proposed changes are draconian and no one can predict the resulting outcome. However, based on prior Congressional programs one can predict that if a program is ‘passed’, it will be more costly and less effective than predicted.


3. American Medicine Exceptionalism – Why care if the proposed programs are not perfect? The answer to that question is hopefully clear to Washington: The United States is universally regarded as having the most advanced medical care in the world. There is a reason that more than 400,000 foreigners travel to the United States each year to undergo treatments and procedures. Radically changing a successful system is risky business, but Congress seems oblivious to the risks involved. America is the incubator from which medical advancements hatch. Just to name a few such ‘breakthroughs’:

Representative Ann Kirkpatrick
September 23, 2009
Page Three

In 1987, Dr. Eddie Joe Reddick, a private practice general surgeon in Nashville Tennessee, performed the first laparoscopic removal of a gallbladder, paving the way for the field of minimally invasive surgery. In 1985, patients undergoing gallbladder surgery were usually hospitalized for 5 to 10 days and were off from work for 4 to 6 weeks. In 2009, the same surgery is performed as an outpatient and most patients are back to work in less than a week. Dr. Reddick’s technique radically changed the way surgeons approached many surgical problems. A new approach that produced improved outcomes and significant cost savings to society. The rest of the world then followed our example.

In 1981, Dr. John Simpson, a private practice cardiologist in California, invented the ‘movable guidewire’ for coronary angioplasty catheters, thus revolutionizing our approach to the treatment of coronary artery disease. Something that once required open-heart surgery, a prolonged hospitalization, and weeks away from work, could suddenly be treated with a simple catheter procedure, a one-day stay in the hospital, and only a few days away from work. A new approach that produced improved outcomes and significant cost savings to society. The rest of the world then followed our example.

Drugs classified as ‘statins’, that lower cholesterol remarkably and have resulted in significantly lower mortality rates from heart disease, were developed in the United States. Americans have better access to these ‘wonder’ drugs than European patients. In the U.S. 56% of patients who would benefit from a statin drug are taking such a drug, whereas only 36% of Dutch, 29% of Swiss, and 23% of Britons are receiving them. Not only did America make this ‘breakthrough’ in heart disease prevention but has also proven more effective in disseminating the treatment to those who will most benefit from it.

American advances in the treatment of heart disease are producing dramatic reductions in mortality. In 1970 the death rate from heart disease in America was 448 per 100,000 population. In 1980 it was 345; in 1990 the rate was 250. By 2006 (the last year data are available) the death rate from heart disease was 135 per 100,000 population. One cannot merely view the increase in healthcare expenditures without evaluating the results produced by that expenditure. In heart disease care alone, there are 400,000 fewer deaths per year than there were in 1970. I would suggest that those saved by these new treatments and procedures would agree that the expenditures were well spent!

Representative Ann Kirkpatrick
September 23, 2009
Page Four

America sets the standard for cancer treatments. Breast cancer mortality is 52% higher in Germany than in the U.S. and 88% higher in Great Britain. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer patients is 40% higher in the United Kingdom than in the U.S. Why would we want to incorporate any aspects of health care from these European countries with inferior treatment outcomes?

During his treatment for malignant brain cancer, Senator Ted Kennedy received proton beam therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital, which spares viable tissue while attacking the cancerous tissue. It is only available to patients in the United States. The reason Senator Kennedy did not seek treatment overseas, is because the most advanced health care in the world is here in the United States.

There is no doubt that the proposals currently being debated in Washington will produce an end to the era of American Exceptionalism in Medicine – ask any doctor. The legacy of the 111th Congress will be the death of American Medical Exceptionalism if it passes any of the current health care proposals.

4. “Show me the Money” – The current proposals in Congress rely on savings generated from eliminating more than $500 billion in ‘fraud and abuse’ from the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs. Every president and Congress since Nixon have made similar pledges, but you know what – the waste is still there. One does not have to pass a major ‘overhaul’ of health care to solve this problem. The government ‘owns’ Medicare and Medicaid – why not immediately begin to realize these savings if they can be identified and eliminated? If MasterCard and VISA can effectively control ‘fraud and abuse’ in their trillions of dollars in transactions yearly, why can’t the government do the same with a much smaller program? The reason the ‘fraud and abuse’ are still a part of those programs is the government does not have the expertise or technology to identify the ‘waste’.

Confidence in the government’s ability to manage a significant change in healthcare would be much greater if the government could demonstrate that it can fix the problems that currently exist in its present programs. Why not take the next two or three years and concentrate on the fraud and abuse in these government programs and prove to the American people the government can get results, not just make promises?

Representative Ann Kirkpatrick
September 23, 2009
Page Five

5. Inflammatory Rhetoric –The manner in which a proposed program is framed is an excellent indicator of the advocator’s beliefs. As a physician, I am terribly disturbed by the manner in which President Obama has characterized the medical profession. For the purpose of illustration I will give two such instances of this characterization:

• Portsmouth, New Hampshire August 11, 2009: Taken directly from transcripts of President’s Obama’s town hall meeting. President Obama states: “All I'm saying is let's take the example of something like diabetes, one of --- a disease that's skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it's not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family -- if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they're taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 -- immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we're also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money.” (Applause.)

• Press Conference, East Room, White House July 22, 2009: Taken directly from transcripts of President’s Obama’s press conference. President Obama states: “So if they're looking -- and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, you know what, I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out. Now that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change -- maybe they have allergies, maybe they have something else that would make a difference. So part of what we want to do is to free doctors, patients, hospitals to make decisions based on what's best for patient care.”
For expediency I have bolded and highlighted the portions of the president’s speeches to indicate the inflammatory manner in which he has categorized physicians. In the first example he has stated that a surgeon would receive $30,000 to $50,000 for performing an amputation – nothing

Representative Ann Kirkpatrick
September 23, 2009
Page Six

could be further from the truth. The customary surgeon’s reimbursement for such a procedure is from $600 to $800 dollars. Not even the total hospital bill would approach the numbers ‘thrown out’ by the President.
In the second example, the President implies that physicians take into consideration what they will be reimbursed in making clinical decisions and only places like the Mayo Clinic base decisions on “what is best for the patient.” This statement is a vicious attack on the ethical values of physicians and is so egregious it does not even deserve a comment.
The use of rhetoric like this has only one purpose, not to disseminate the facts but to distort them to obtain a goal – in this case the President’s vision of medical care. By demonizing physicians as ‘money grubbing’ individuals, the administration seeks to gather support from the public. My disappointment in the President is only exceeded by my disappointment that no one in Congress stood tall and said – those statements are wrong! Do not think that these statements were overlooked by the medical profession; every physician I have talked with about the healthcare issue spontaneously brings up these two examples.
6. Absolute False Statements: One can intelligently debate issues without purposefully giving false statements to embellish one’s argument. The most glaring example was during President Obama’s speech before Congress on September 9, 2009 when he gave examples of abusive actions by insurers. Mr. Obama referred to a man in Illinois who “lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed treatment, and he died because of it.”
According to Scott Harrington of the Wall Street Journal: the President’s conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing of industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years."

Representative Ann Kirkpatrick
September 23, 2009
Page Seven

Why would the President use a false statement on a nationally televised speech? Do we have to distort the facts to win our position? Why demonize the insurance industry in a fashion similar to the way he has demonized physicians? One can only conclude that the healthcare debate is really about President Obama delivering on a major social issue and not about what is best for the average American who is quite satisfied with their own personal health insurance situation. Once again Washington is about who wins and who loses – the people have been forgotten.
It is my sincere hope that you will vote against any of the current health care proposals before Congress (or any iteration of the same) and seek a more reasoned, incremental approach to addressing the major issues related to insurance ‘one problem at a time’. In the interim, this Congress and administration can immediately demonstrate its commitment to reform by implementing processes that actual identify and eliminate the ‘fraud and abuse’ in the current government medical programs.
Should you wish to discuss these issues in more depth, I would be happy to discuss them with you by phone, (928) 771-0978 or in person. Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy letter.
Yours sincerely,


David S. Hess, M.D., F.A.C.C.

Dump the United Nations

Why, exactly, do we still belong to the United Nations? We provide about 25% of the funding for the U.N., apparently because it must be expensive to talk a lot without actually doing anything and to fund anti-American hate propaganda. Well, I guess the money doesn’t just go for propaganda. Does anyone remember the Oil for Food scandal? Does anyone remember the corrupt U.N. leadership getting fabulously rich, with no significant repercussions, even when they were caught? Does anyone remember Saddam Hussein chairing the U.N. human rights commission? Does anyone seriously believe the corruption has abated? So, why do we continue to support this corrupt organization that offers nothing but empty rhetoric and hates us?

While we’re at it, we should also note that we continue to send foreign aid to many corrupt regimes that subjugate their people and regularly vote against us in the U.N. Our foreign aid policy seems to center around enriching the corrupt leaders of poor countries, while congratulating ourselves that a few pennies actually make it down to those in need. So, in these troubled financial times (or any other times, for that matter), why do we keep throwing money at dictators?

I agree that we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate than us, but does that extend to our enemies, especially the corrupt ones? Should we continue to prop up totalitarian regimes in the prayer that some of the money will dribble down to the truly needy? The issue here is not whether we are willing to help others – clearly we are, witness our largess with foreign aid and our willingness to spend a huge proportion of our budget to fund a military that protects the whole world. The real issue is whether we should continue to throw good money after bad – whether we should try to bribe others into liking us, or, phrased differently, whether we should continue to pay the extortion money they demand. In any case, clearly none of this is working.

How about a different approach? Why don’t we try giving foreign aid to charitable organizations and other NGOs and encourage them to work in countries where they are allowed to freely bring food and medicine to those actually in need. If there are good diplomatic or other reasons why we should give foreign aid directly to countries, how about limiting it to free and democratic ones?

Why don’t we just quit the U.N.? Let’s form an alternative international association of freedom loving, democratic nations. Call it, say, the United Free Nations – something like NATO on a world-wide scale. NATO countries don’t always agree with us, but they don’t hate us. Let’s support and associate with countries without dictators and with human rights. It’s not that we would be denying support to those in need – it’s that we would quit supporting oppression. Let’s see how all those totalitarian regimes do without our support.

The really bad guys like Ahmadinejad, Kim, and Chavez will no doubt continue to spread their anti-American vitriol, and the conniving bastards like the Russians and the Chinese will continue their Machiavellian ploys; but I suspect that many of the less whacko nations may clean up their act if they lose our support and suddenly have to depend on the likes of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia and China.

I say we should begin to follow the advice our grandfathers gave us: choose your friends carefully.

Humor: Drooping and Sagging

The scariest movie I ever saw was, “The Attack of the Body Snatchers”. Nasty aliens planted giant seed pods all over the place and inside each pod grew a human body that was an exact replica of a real person. Once the pod body was fully grown, it took over the person it duplicated. Ok, maybe you don’t think it’s all that scary, but it still gives me the jitters.

And, just like in the movies, my worst nightmare has come true. The other day I was having trouble with the ear pieces on my glasses (these are called the “temples”, by the way – I looked it up). No matter how carefully I straightened them, my glasses were crooked – tipped to the right. Finally, I went into the bathroom to see if I was imagining the crookedness. I looked in the mirror and there was the root cause, plain as day. My right ear was quite a bit lower than my left ear.

Now, that ear has been on my head for 65 years, on the right, behind my sideburn, and beneath my hair. I’m pretty sure I would have noticed by now if it had always been out of place. I’m positive it has consistently been situated at the same elevation as my left ear. Yet, there it was, a full half inch low. There can only be one explanation: the pod body that replaced me was slightly defective.

In the movie, the replacement pod people were kind of numb and robotic, but my mind seems not to have been affected. I still have the same keen razor-sharp mind that remembers every detail except why to hell I came into this room. Just goes to show you that Hollywood doesn’t always get it right.

My wife doesn’t buy the pod thing. She thinks my ear is just sagging a little faster than the rest of my body, and the other ear will likely soon catch up. Now, I find that thought more than a little disconcerting. If things don’t droop symmetrically, all sorts of problems could develop: shirts with one long and one short sleeve; pants with one high water leg and the other dragging on the floor; bow legs that look like a figure 8; eyebrows that look like one caterpillar is farther up the tree; and, a potbelly that looks like a dumbbell with too many weights on one side. My God, what if the droops were on random sides. I’ll end up looking like Disney’s Goofy (or is it Pluto - I always get those characters mixed up).

This is all too much to contemplate. I’m going with the pod thing. Now that I think about it, this new pod body never smoked or drank or otherwise abused itself. I’ve got a whole new body to dissipate, and now I’m experienced. I’ll get it done in no time.

Playing the Race Card

In general, I have found that stereotypes get to be stereotypes for a reason: there is some truth to them. The big problem with stereotypes is that, even if they cease to be valid, they are as difficult to remove as a government program.

For example, there is a stereotype in this country that liberals are much less likely to be racists than conservatives, yet most conservatives I know get really pissed off if you call them racists. There’s another stereotype in this country that liberals are much more likely to be anti-American than conservatives, yet most liberals I know get really pissed off if you call them un-American or unpatriotic. Stereotypes are often wrong and they are always aggravating.

I lived in the South during the civil rights/Vietnam protest years, and I remember many conservatives who were segregationists, and proud of it. I also remember that many liberals from that era burned flags and supported Ho Chi Minh - some even did stuff like blow up the Pentagon - blatant un-American and unpatriotic behavior, yet they, too, were proud of themselves.

Times do change, and so do people. For example, some of my current conservative friends and acquaintances were liberal activists during the civil rights movement. Their politics have changed, but not their strong opposition to prejudice in general and racism in particular. I still know a few conservatives who are racists, but even their views have softened considerably. They seem to be frustrated more than angry, and much of their angst is about subjects like reverse discrimination and victimization.

Fifty years ago, the “n” word was as common as the “f” word is today, but these days the “n” word is a rare occurrence, except of course from black rappers who seem to revel in both words. Now there’s a deserving stereotype: “gangsta rappers”. I attribute all sorts of misogynistic, criminal, anti-social, uncivilized, racist, and other nasty sentiments to gangsta rappers and their music. But those attributions are directed toward their genre, not their race. I certainly do not think that way about the black lawyer, carpenter, businessman, plumber, clergyman, etc. who lives down the street or across the country. Like most of my conservative friends, I am very likely to judge people on their competence, character, and behavior, but I could care less about their race or ethnicity. I don’t mean to suggest that racism no longer exists among conservatives – it does – but it is usually considered unacceptable and backward and it has been relegated to the periphery.

In any case, if we’re going to be comparing liberals and conservatives, the discussion is about politics, not race. Conservatives generally agree that Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice are wonderful role models to be respected and admired by all, and that Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean are beneath contempt. My liberal friends, on the other hand, are very critical of both Thomas and Rice, and generally supportive of Pelosi and Dean. Does this mean my liberal friends are racists? Of course not - in both cases, the nasty remarks are about politics, not race. So much for racism.

Up until recently, I’m pleased to say that I don’t ever remember being called a racist or a bigot. Lately, though, it seems to be happening more and more – by folks who leap to the incredibly false and insulting assumption that any person or group that disagrees with President Obama does so because of his race. For many Obama supporters, the definition of racism has now become disagreement with the President or his policies. Countless politicians, clergy, media and press reporters, and other liberals, have publicly referred to people who oppose the President’s health care plan, or bailouts, or deficit spending, or corporate takeovers, as racists. Some of the same people have called folks who participated in “tea parties” or the recent “9.12 march on Washington” fascists, racists, bigots, and other epithets. In fact, the accusations seem to have come most quickly and most often from black politicians, clergy, and celebrities.

By any definition, this is “playing the race card”. Just because I disagree with a black president, politician, clergyman, or any other black person, does not mean that I am a racist. It simply means that I disagree with the person. I have a right, indeed a bounden duty, to express my political opinions, and the real agenda of those who would label me a racist is to censure my right of free speech – to shut me up.

This “race card” game is dangerous sport. Everyone knows how sensitive black people are to racial slurs, but I’m less certain that liberals know how sensitive conservatives are to charges of racism. For many years now, Hollywood and television and video games have featured black characters hurling racial epithets at black and white people. This has been considered acceptable, perhaps out of some sense of “white guilt”. But now the epithets have crossed over from the entertainment world to the real world.

A few days ago, I heard a well educated and reasonable conservative friend say, “When black liberals brand me a racist, that’s a slur, and I get so pissed off that I want to hurl the “n” word right back at them.” That’s the way it is with slurs, racial or otherwise. As soon as you use one, the discussion stops and the fight begins.

Socialism On The Rise

America was founded on two great principles: democracy and capitalism - freedom and private enterprise. They are intrinsically entwined. If you stifle one, you stifle the other. They stand in perfect contrast to autocracy and socialism. In democratic societies, the people have the ultimate say. In autocracies, the government has the ultimate say. In capitalism, companies are owned by private people. In socialism, companies are owned by the government.

So much for economic and political science theory – here in the real world, there are no pure democracies and no country is purely capitalistic. We definitely need some government in our lives. You don’t have to be a socialist to recognize that there are some things that are better run by the government, e.g., the military, homeland defense, mail (UPS and Fedex wouldn’t touch daily mail delivery), highways and roads, police and fire departments, etc. Some other things seem to function best when they are regulated, but not run, by the government, e.g., the airlines, food and drug quality, electric power and natural gas distribution, and interstate transportation. But, in a democracy, these are the exceptions - most things seem to function best when the government stays out of the way and capitalism (free enterprise) is allowed to run its course. And that’s the way things have always been here in America … all the way up to 2009.

Then came CHANGE! Incredibly, everything has been turned on its head during the past few months. The government has taken over more and more businesses and activities, ostensibly to protect us from one “crisis” or another. First we were told that some large insurance companies needed a huge “stimulus” cash injection or they would fail. Then some large banks needed to be bailed out or they would fail. Next came General Motors and Chrysler: bail them out or they would fail. Before we could catch our breath, much less digest the issues or have a national debate, a completely partisan congress passed several huge spending bills, and presto: the government is running insurance companies, banks, and automobile manufacturers, and the national deficit and debt have skyrocketed. How on earth did we ever agree to all this? Well, we didn’t. President Obama and congress just did it. They didn’t ask our permission. Oh, they did keep us informed, sort of: the takeovers were couched in phraseology like “the American people now own a major share of General Motors”. What? I already owned shares of General Motors – shares that I could sell. That’s what it means to own a share of General Motors: you have a stock certificate that you can sell. Does anyone remember getting AIG, Citybank, or General Motors stock certificates when the government took over? These are not takeovers by the American people. These are takeovers by the government. Let’s see, what is it called when the government takes over major industries? Oh yeah, socialism! What is it called when smooth talk convinces you that something you have always instinctively opposed is actually a good idea? Oh, yeah, a con-job!

When 52% of American voters elected President Obama and a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, they were convinced they were voting for hope and change. How many of them were hoping for a change from capitalism to socialism, from democracy to autocracy?

Exactly how critical were all those “crises”, anyway? Most of the “stimulus” money is not scheduled to be spent until 2010 – how critical could that have been? (Oh, I see. It is critical that the money be spent during the political campaign season next year … hmmm.) What would have happened if some insurance, banking, and automobile companies had “failed”. Well, when a company “fails”, it can’t pay its bills, and it is forced to declare bankruptcy. Our economic and legal systems have anticipated such happenstances, and are fully prepared to deal with them. The bankruptcy code includes several types of bankruptcies, and the one that is usually most applicable to large companies is called Chapter 11. In that case, a judge or administrator is placed in charge of reorganizing the company. This means the company renegotiates its contracts with its vendors, suppliers and employees. Everyone initially settles for less than they are owed, but everyone gets something, including a possibility of future payment of the balance. In many cases, the more favorable contracts allow the company to once again become profitable and they are able to pay off their old bills.

Let’s look at General Motors. If the government had not interfered, General Motors would have declared bankruptcy and reorganized by renegotiating its untenable union contracts, closing unprofitable dealerships, and eliminating some models, among other things. Most likely, a smaller, leaner, but profitable GM would have emerged. Then stockholders like me would have seen the value of their shares rise, GM stock would have once again become attractive to investors, and capitalism would have done the rest. Instead, GM went bankrupt anyway, but now the government and the autoworkers union are the majority shareholders – General Motors became Government Motors.

Does anyone really believe that the government and the union will do a better job of making GM profitable?

When has the government ever been efficient or turned a profit? The government owns Amtrak, Medicare, Social Security, and the Post Office. All of them are supposedly self sufficient and all of them are broke! The only reason they continue to operate is that the government keeps infusing tax dollars. (It’s much easier to keep a badly managed enterprise afloat if you can just print more money.)

And does anyone really expect the union to turn a profit? Fat and fatter union contracts have been one of the major problems with the U.S. auto industry. The ever-fatter union contracts have strangled the companies and made them less and less profitable (yes, the company management is also complicit and should be fired). And now the President uses our tax dollars to give a huge share of GM to the unions? As they say in the South, we have put the fox in charge of the hen-house. But, you have to give the President credit: he has kept his promises to the unions who were so instrumental in getting him elected. Wait a minute? Isn’t this the guy who vowed never to be influenced by special interests? I guess that depends on what your definition of “never” is.

Now the government is maneuvering to take over the health care industry: 17% of our economy. Is there an economist anywhere that would disagree with the notion that, when the government gains increasing control of the insurance, banking, automobile and health care industries, capitalism is dying and socialism is on the rise? Is that really the change we had in mind? Seriously? Socialists depend on the government to take care of everyone. Capitalists take care of themselves. Which are we, dependent or independent?

Think about it folks. All of this has happened in less than a year. Congress and the Obama Administration have employed “crisis” tactics to scare us into throwing away capitalistic free enterprise in favor of socialism – competition in favor of regulation. Capitalism is America’s powerhouse, the heart of the strongest economy on earth, the most consistently productive country in history, a meritocracy where excellence and accomplishment lead to achievement and advancement, the mother ship of entrepreneurism and enterprise. We abandon all this for socialism? The heart of socialism is regulated equality – not equality of opportunity, but sameness. Unions, for example, are socialistic ventures. Since seniority is the only basis for advancement, and neither exceptional skill level nor superior competence are factors, everyone is obviously presumed to have equal levels of skill and competence. If the only basis of promotion or advancement is seniority, why would anyone work harder or try to perform better? Why indeed? Welcome to socialism.

America derives is strength and greatness not from equality but from equality of opportunity! Democracy and capitalism strive to treat everyone equally but recognize that we are not all the same. Everyone has the same opportunity to succeed, but the degree of success depends on competence, willingness to work hard, and competitive drive. Socialism, on the other hand, stifles competition and work ethic in the name of sameness, and thus drowns out excellence.

One of the biggest problems with socialism on a national scale is the size of centralized government and the bureaucracy required to run it. Take socialized medicine (national health care) as an example. In the current debate on national health care, many folks have been frustrated by the complexity of the 1,000+ page bill that is working its way through congress. It is so long and complex that many of the politicians who are pushing the bill have admittedly not read either the bill or its many proposed amendments and alternatives. As if that were not sufficiently frustrating, consider this. Whichever bill is ultimately enacted, the resulting law will only prescribe things like purpose, objectives, guidelines, parameters, and limitations. That’s what laws do. The implementation of the law, i.e., how the national health care system will function day to day, will be governed by rules and regulations that will be developed by various government bureaucracies – some existing and some new. If you think this proposed law is long and complicated, wait until you see the resulting rules and regulations. They will comprise tens of thousands of pages, no one will understand the whole thing, there will be dozens of agencies with conflicting rules and competing agendas, and the bureaucrats who administer the rules and regulations will be hopelessly bound in red tape. I can envision a national health care system with the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the INS.

As Ronald Reagan once said, “The closest thing to eternal life here on earth is a government program.” Well standby, folks, the government programs are raining down on us and we’re going to have the devil’s own time getting rid of them. By the time our first opportunity comes around in November of 2010, Obama and his socialist secular progressives will be well entrenched. We had better get in shape because we’re in for a helluva fight. The early skirmishes have already been fought by those who participated in the “tea parties” and the “9-12 march on Washington” – truly civilized, non-violent, grass roots protests by good solid Americans. The silent majority is finally finding its voice. Kind of energizing, isn’t it?