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."
29 October 2009
28 October 2009
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.
• 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.
27 October 2009
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.
16 October 2009
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.
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.
10 October 2009
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.
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.
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.
04 October 2009
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.
03 October 2009
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.
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.
01 October 2009
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.
• 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)