Do You Remember What Bush Said?

Last November I notified readers of this blog that, for the following reasons, I would not be posting for a while:  first, it seemed that I had nothing new to add - my thoughts concurred with those of many other commentators; and, secondly, I wanted to take some time to think about possibly writing a book or two.  Naturally, I noted that I might occasionally post if it seemed appropriate.  This is one of those times.


It seems the world has completely forgotten one of George Bush's primary motives for invading Iraq.  I confess that I stoutly opposed that intervention, and it does seem that the UN, European, Israeli, and US Intelligence Agencies were all wrong in their unanimous contention that Saddam had WMDs (or, even if they were all correct, the WMDs have not yet been found).   In any case, the WMD issue so enthralled the media and pundits around the world that we all seem to have forgotten that President Bush had another equally compelling motive for his invasion of Iraq.   He believed that the creation of a successful democracy in Iraq would model freedom and capitalism for all the other Muslim nations.  He believed that, given a foothold in Iraq, freedom would capture the hearts of the people and spread throughout the Middle East.  

I know that some of my far-left friends may not remember this goal of Bush's Iraq doctrine, but it is easy to verify:  he spoke about it publicly on more than 30 occasions in America, Europe, and the Middle East, including many televised interviews - just Google it.

Ok, I admit it's too soon to call Iraq a democracy, or anything else for certain, but everthing seems to be pointing in that direction (my heart will be forever touched by the photos and images of all those purple fingered voters).  I suspect that Iraqi freedom will not look like ours or Europe's, and that their democracy will have its own particular twist.  Nonetheless, life in Iraq is sure looking more like democracy than totalitarianism or theocracy.


And, here's the simple point of this short essay:  the people have revolted in Egypt, Libya, and Syria, and uprisings are popping up in several other Middle Eastern countries.  It's still way too early to tell which forms of government will emerge, but freedom is the rallying cry everywhere.  President Bush might just have been right.


But, fear not, you committed Bush haters.  Even if the Middle East does roll over to democracy, the world press and media will do their level best to convince us that it had nothing to do with President Bush - just like the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union had nothing to do with President Reagan.

A Personal Peek at European Socialism

A few weeks ago, my wife and I were fortunate enough to visit a number of countries along the Baltic Sea. Our trip included visits to the former Communist Block nations of Latvia, Estonia, and Russia, as well as the former East Germany. We also visited The Netherlands and Sweden, both of which have strong socialist governments. We had an opportunity to speak to some local folks in each of these places, and I was struck by the disparity between their view of life and our own.

My wife and I are “war babies”. We were raised in the 40’s, 50’s, and early 60’s. We believe our American forefathers left us three of the greatest gifts in the world: freedom, capitalism, and free markets. We cherish a view of America as exceptional, a shining beacon of freedom, the last great hope of the world. We were blessed to have been born and raised in a country where equality of opportunity gave us the chance to work hard and use our God-given gifts to grow and succeed. We assume that everyone wants to reach their greatest potential, and we relish American drive, ambition, will to succeed, personal pride, and a strong work ethic.

Sadly, it seems that such traditional American values have been somewhat diluted of late. They are commonly disparaged in today’s media and press. Individual achievement and success are increasingly displaced by government programs and entitlements, equality of opportunity by equality, the melting pot by multi-culturalism. Somewhere along the line it became fashionable to empathize with the tragic childhood of bullies, bandits, and bombers rather than to confront, incarcerate, or execute them. We now try to foster self esteem by recognizing participation rather than achievement. The media and press are increasingly critical of capitalism and free markets. Our government drifts inexorably to the left. We often read and hear about the benefits and joys of “European socialism” – which brings me back to our Baltic Sea trip.

As an admittedly old-fashioned American, I was astounded by the personal views I encountered.

In Russia, a guide fondly remembered when “everyone had a job, food, clothing, and a place to live”, however humble it all may have been. To some degree, she actually missed Communism, even though it offered no hope of improvement (except through the Party apparatus), and in spite of the oppression of the Party apparachnics and the KGB.

The socialist countries that had never been communists also espoused views that were at odds with our own. Personal goals commonly centered on comfort rather than achievement. They expected government guarantees of: plentiful vacation (6 weeks) holidays and free time, permanent employment unrelated to performance, early retirement (age 60 at the latest) with comfortable pensions, short work weeks (35 hours), and full medical, dental, mental health, and addiction rehabilitation benefits. Personal goals and virtues such as individual responsibility, ambition, drive, productivity, accomplishment, achievement, advancement, recognition, and success, did not seem to be on their radar. The word entrepreneur and the dream of owning and growing your own business brought blank stares.

One guide asked me why we value capitalism so much? When I responded that capitalism and free markets are the engines of American productivity (ok, maybe a little too pedantic, but I was riled), he reminded me that China was also quite productive. I agreed of course that totalitarian regimes such as Communist China can be productive, but only on the backs of the underprivileged poor.

For the first time, I really understood that, although American economic prosperity is rooted in capitalism and free markets, it is propelled by individual freedom.

I have always felt that socialism was an economically inferior system, but I found it to be much worse than that. It robs you of the drive that distinguishes us from our primate cousins and pulled us out of the jungle and off the steppes. Socialism doesn’t just affect your wallet and your lifestyle, it stifles your heart, your spirit, and your soul. It steals your pride and your dignity. It values ordinary over excellent. Ugh.

General McChrystal's Resignation

Yesterday morning, General Stanley McChrystal, one of our nation’s best leaders, a dedicated and proven special operations soldier, tendered his resignation as commander of the Afghanistan war to President Obama. The precipitating issue was an article in Rolling Stone magazine which described and quoted the General and several members of his staff during informal, off-duty, bull sessions - gatherings of the inner circle where everyone let their hair down and relaxed.

The political, media, and academic frenzy which followed the Rolling Stone article was front-page news. Inside sources say the White house was hysterical.

All of this furor resulted from a sadly typical civilian misunderstanding of the warrior mindset. Off-duty soldiers will always grouse and bitch about their leaders, especially in a bull session. Nonetheless, the next morning, on duty, they will faithfully move heaven and earth and even sacrifice their own lives to follow lawful orders and complete their mission, EVEN IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE MISSION ITSELF AND THOSE WHO ISSUED THE ORDERS. This notion does not compute to anyone who has not experienced the level of commitment and sense of duty that pervades today's American military.

That understood, let’s consider the present case. Many colleagues who actually know General McChrystal have commented that the General and his staff are way too bright and disciplined to have "inadvertently" spoken in front of a Rolling Stone reporter - it's Rolling Stone, for heaven's sake. I suspect the General was just sick and tired of fighting the war on three fronts: the Taliban, President Karzai, and the State Department.

American military officers, including General McChrystal, totally understand and agree with the cherished US system of civilian control over the military. But the General grew increasingly frustrated by the refusal of his civilian leadership to pay attention to their front line commanders, thus imperiling the outcome of the war. General McChrystal’s duty to his mission, and his oath to follow the lawful orders of his superiors, became increasingly in conflict. So, being the resourceful leader that he is, he found a clever and innovative way to resolve his dilemma.

Since the first Gulf War, in exchange for complete access to the military in combat, the responsible press and media have tacitly agreed not to report casual off-duty remarks or conversations. But General McChrystal invited not just any reporter, but one from Rolling Stone, an openly hostile magazine, into his inner circle. I believe the General knew full well that the Rolling Stone reporter was unlikely to honor the tacit agreement, that Rolling Stone would report everything said in those off-duty, informal conversations, that the resulting article would end the General’s career, and that the article would force a reluctant political hierarchy to face and deal with the unpleasant realities of the war. General McChrystal fell on his sword – he sacrificed his own career in order to be faithful to both his oath and his duty.

We are indeed blessed to have men of General McChrystal’s character leading our soldiers in combat. He is a man to be admired – a man of honor.

The National Debt

Ok, my liberal/progressive friends, I agree and acknowledge that President Bush was no friend of fiscal conservatism. But Bush was downright thrifty in comparison to the out of control spending of the Obama Administration. The Bush Administration’s spending was analogous to a person charging an amount equal to a year’s pay to credit cards – the interest alone is overwhelming. This type of debt is obviously irresponsible, but, with determination, hard work, and a commitment to fiscal responsibility, the person can pay off the debt over time and once again become solvent. But the Obama Administration’s non-stop printing and borrowing of money is like that same person accumulating credit card debts greater than the amount they will earn in 5 years – a staggering debt that probably cannot be satisfied in a lifetime.

That is exactly where we find ourselves today. Our national debt is approximately five times our federal income. If our national debt cannot be paid off in our lifetime, it must de-facto be paid by our children and grandchildren – an immoral, un-American, and unthinkable proposition for any responsible parent – if you care for your children, you cannot saddle them with mounds of debt.

Economists tell us that a certain amount of national debt is a good thing. I don’t really get that, but I guess I’m ok with it as long as the “certain amount” will be paid by the people who benefit from the proceeds of the debt, a condition that we have woefully failed to satisfy. Let me be very clear. Our generation has provided itself with social benefits and entitlements that we cannot afford. Our progressive government congratulates itself on its generosity, benevolence, and altruism, all of which will be paid for by the sacrifices and privation of our children and grandchildren. Our parents were the greatest generation. Our progeny will be the sacrificial generation. We are the selfish generation.

Economists also tell us that there are only a few ways to decrease national debt:

• decrease spending,
• increase tax revenue,
• increase the Gross Domestic Product (economic growth and productivity),
• inflation (the government can then pay off the debt with cheaper dollars),
• (gasp) devalue the currency, or
• (gasp, gasp) default on the debt.

Note that the last three of the six have devastating implications. We are therefore left with decreasing spending, increasing tax revenue, and increasing productivity.

During the past couple of decades, our increasing social programs (government spending) have been accompanied by increasing national productivity. The problem is that the increasing productivity was not permanent – it was based on two “booms” (the dot-com boom followed by the housing boom), both of which went “bust”. We now find ourselves with a great financial burden to pay for all our new social programs (medicare prescription drugs, no child left behind, bail-outs, government take-overs of corporations, heath care, financial sector regulation, possibly cap and trade), but a stagnant economy with little growth in productivity (GDP).

The Obama Administration promises that their spending programs (euphemistically called “investments”) will lead to increased productivity, but there is absolutely no evidence that this will work. Government spending creates government jobs which add little or nothing to national productivity. The Roosevelt administration unsuccessfully tried to spend its way out of the Great Depression for more than 7 years, but the depression continued in full force until WWII, when great sacrifice and effort by the entire American population resulted in a huge increase in productivity. It was WWII and the American work ethic that ended the depression, not government spending.

The Obama Administration also promises that increasing taxes on the rich will increase tax revenues. Once again there is no evidence that this will work. In fact, history shows exactly the opposite. You cannot create jobs and increase productivity by penalizing the very people and corporations that create jobs and wealth. Increasing taxes punishes success and thus decreases revenues. However counter-intuitive, President Kennedy was right when he said that decreasing taxes on the rich would increase tax revenues (a rising tide floats all ships).

So, how can we decrease the national debt?”

Every liberal/progressive politician will answer that government spending and stimulus programs combined with tax increases on the rich will increase the GDP. Those answers have never worked anywhere on earth, including here in the U.S. They are the same answers traditionally given by the socialist leaders of European countries that are currently failing. If you nonetheless believe that government spending and increasing taxes will work, then I pray you are correct, because that’s the way we’re headed.

If you haven’t been drinking the progressive kool-aid, what is left? Assuming that hyper-inflation, devaluation, and default are off the table, we are left with:

• Tax cuts (highly unlikely in an Obama Administration).
• True tax reform by abolishing all federal income taxes and implementing the Fair Tax (see the October 2009 essay on the Fair Tax).
• Increase the GDP by eliminating government interference with and regulatory burden on business, with a specific emphasis on small business.
• Decrease spending by decreasing the size of government – why, exactly, do we need the Departments of Education, Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, and heaven knows how many other federal monetary black holes?

I don’t have the expertise to quantify the effects of these reforms on our national debt. They may or may not be adequate. Here’s what I do know. Nothing short of enormous personal sacrifice by every American, a national commitment on the scale of WWII, will get us out of this financial quagmire.

It is my sad conclusion that America will face deprivation. We will suffer and sacrifice, either voluntarily by implementing fiscally conservative reforms, or, absent those reforms, involuntarily by the inevitability of hyper-inflation, devaluation, and/or default. The only question is who will make the sacrifices – us or our children and grandchildren?

The Gulf Oil Spill

The media and internet are saturated with stories about the administration’s failure to respond to Louisiana’s request to build barrier islands, its failure to use available oil booms and other technology, and its refusal to accept help from other nations, including Great Britain and The Netherlands. We also read that U.S. regulatory agencies have disallowed the use of dispersants and other technologies that might have ameliorated the problems. The administration counters that their efforts have been timely and herculean. There are so many accusations and counter-charges that the situation seems hopelessly complicated.

It’s not. The answers are really quite simple, folks, even if the media and the administration fail to grasp them.

The Spill

First, no reasonable person questions that this spill is a catastrophe – not the oil industry, not the Republicans, not the Tea Party, not the Libertarians, not Sarah Palin, not even the most rabid-ass drill baby drill conservatives – no one. So, will the liberal/progressive establishment, media, and administration please stop with the innuendos about some sort of greed-driven right-wing conspiracy. In fact, the only agendas that will benefit from this spill are those of the Cap and Trade environmentalists and their eco-terrorists left wing. This spill will be their anti-oil, anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-America, and pro-big government poster child for decades to come.

The simple truth is that BP has owned full culpability. No doubt time will shed some light on mistakes also made by Transocean, the owners of the Deepwater Horizon rig, Halliburton, their consultants, and others. The Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that approved shortcuts taken during the drilling, also dropped the ball. There will be time enough to spread recriminations, but, to their credit, BP has stepped up.

Plugging the Leak

All of the expertise to stop the leak resides in the private sector. However this leak is eventually contained, it will have been BP/Transocean/Hallibuton or other private enterprise that figures out and implements the solution. Any action taken by government agencies will be to appease political pressure and will only delay and complicate the process.

The President is right. He does not know how to stop the leak, and neither does anyone else in the government, nor should they. No one wants to stop this leak more than BP, and no one can do it better.

The Clean-Up

This is the federal government’s opportunity to shine. Sadly, their performance to date is dull at best.

President Obama talks a lot about leadership, and there is little doubt that this crisis suffers from a huge deficit of leadership. Here’s what a real Commander-in-Chief would have done. As soon as the enormous scope of the problem became apparent (roughly a week or two after the explosion), the President should have called in the Chief of Naval Operations, the senior officer in the Navy, and given him the following order: “Admiral Roughead (I kid you not, that is his name), the Gulf oil spill is a national catastrophe. The following orders are temporary and will remain in effect until the clean-up is under control. You are hereby appointed the Officer in Charge of the clean-up. All other federal and military agencies involved in the clean up, including regulatory agencies, are subordinated to you. You have the authority to suspend any regulatory or administrative rules you deem necessary. You are authorized to mobilize as much of the US Navy, Coast Guard, and any other agencies as you deem necessary. You are authorized to request and/or accept support from foreign governments or agencies that you deem useful. You are authorized to gather all oil spill booms and any other equipment or technology or expertise from any U.S. agency or corporation or individual that you deem necessary or helpful. If any shortfall in equipment, technology, or expertise is determined, you are authorized to request and/or purchase them from any government or vendor on earth. I expect these orders to supersede all other endeavors, and I expect to see major activity within days, not weeks. Do you understand those orders?”

The Admiral will stand at attention, say, “Aye, aye, sir”, do an about-face, walk out of the President’s office, and clean up the spill. By the way, as the CNO exited the office door, it wouldn’t hurt to add something like, “Admiral, I expect the Gulf of Mexico to look like D-Day”.

This should have been done two months ago, but it’s not too late. I contend that, within a week of receiving this order, the Navy will have hundreds of ships and booms and equipment and experts and whatchmacallits on site and the world will once more be astounded by American ingenuity, determination, and will to succeed.

Post Script

By the way, Mr. President, I implore you not to be tempted to micromanage this effort. I promise you the Navy will move heaven and earth and get this job done. That’s what the military does. Any involvement by bureaucrats, administration officials, or politician photo-ops will gum up the works.

As a model, think of the First Gulf War. President Bush (41) commanded General Colin Powell to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. For the next several months, we hardly saw the President, but Generals Powell and Schwartzcoff were on TV every night. Once the President gave the command, he stepped aside, as it should be. Once Iraq was out of Kuwait and sufficiently humbled, the President stepped back in, as it should be.

Quality and Equality - Freedom and Fairness

In the context of politics, equality and quality are both noble values, but they come at each other’s expense – as equality increases, quality decreases, and vice versa.

Take health care, for example. Here in the U. S., we offer a very high quality of health care, if you have insurance or can otherwise afford it. That’s why the rich and powerful from all over the world, including the countries that have socialized medicine, often come here for their critical health care needs. But, because high quality health care is expensive, those with good insurance or lots of money get better heath care than the less fortunate. So, we have a high quality but little equality of health care. In countries with socialized medicine, on the other hand, health care is free and everyone is treated equally, but access to certain specialists, drugs, and expensive tests is limited and typically involves an extended wait. The result is that such countries have great equality but a lesser quality of health care.

The same relationships exist for income, housing, standard of living, education, and just about any other aspect of life. If you value quality above equality, then you prefer a system wherein the harder you work, the greater will be your income and standard of living, etc. You favor capitalism and a weak government. If you believe equality to be more valuable than quality, you prefer a system that distributes wealth and living standards equally. You prefer socialism and a strong government.

Really, the issue boils down to fairness vs. freedom. Progressives argue for fairness and equality. “It’s not fair that the poor don’t receive the same health care/education/income/lifestyle/(fill in the blank) as the rich. Everyone should receive the same. No one has the right to judge anyone else.” Conservatives argue for freedom – not equality, but equality of opportunity. “Everyone should have the right to achieve in accordance with their abilities, drive, and determination. You should never judge anyone based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or other intrinsic characteristic, but you can and should judge everyone’s character, competence, skill, and performance.”

It’s pretty easy to see where I fall on this continuum. I strongly believe that freedom is our greatest, most precious, and most fragile, gift. I acknowledge that freedom is not fair. In a free society, some end up with better educations, nicer cars, larger homes, higher incomes, better health care, and more comfortable lifestyles. Some achieve more, some less, and some end up with very little. America was founded and has flourished in a wealth of freedom that offers boundless opportunity and a quality of life that is the envy of the world. There is little equality, but great equality of opportunity – everyone can succeed in accordance with their abilities and willingness to work hard. I should note that some folks choose to forgo some of the rewards of hard work for a life of public service – they accept a more modest lifestyle and dedicate themselves to the betterment of all. I include members of the military, public safety personnel, clerics, some educators, and some medical personnel, as well as most charitable workers, in this category. We all owe an immeasurable debt to such people, and we must always honor and defend their commitment.

As a 21st century conservative, I believe that each of us has a bounden duty to provide, care for, and protect ourselves and our families. I believe that government’s only job is to provide those few services and controls that civilization demands and that cannot be provided by individuals themselves. I do not seek to be taken care of by anyone, especially the government, unless I become unable to care for myself. Conversely, I am more than willing to contribute to or provide for those who are unable to care for themselves, noting that this pledge in no way extends to those who are unwilling to care for themselves. I fully accept that, in this exciting and unpredictable journey of life in a free land, there will be a wide range of personal achievement and accomplishment. I do not begrudge those who achieve more, and I do not feel superior to those who are less accomplished. I ask only that I be given the opportunity to reach my own potential.

These days, there seems to be an impetus, led by progressive politicians, media, press, and academia, to diminish the value of freedom in favor of fairness. If they succeed, we will have forsaken our greatest gift. I cherish that gift beyond measure. If you seek to diminish the freedom personified by America, do so at your own peril.

An Immigrant Speaks

I recently received the following note from a friend and neighbor. The entire illegal immigrant issue could not be better addressed. His note reminds us all to give thanks to God every day for our precious citizenship in this wonderful country.

Hi Joe,

I became an American citizen on May 6th – it was a wonderful tear filled ceremony at Faneuil Hall in Boston. I am a new immigrant, even though I have been in America for nearly 35 years! However, till May 6th, I carried a “Resident Alien” card, or green card in my back pocket every day since 1983. Even when I was out on the pond on the bass boat you’d have found my green card in my wallet next to my NH non-resident fishing license and my NH boating license. This was the law – I had no problem with it. I was not a citizen of the USA, but was being allowed to stay here by the government. The only requirement they made on me was to carry the card with me at all times. I did so dutifully, and without any issues. When asked to produce it, I did. I also recognized that if I had been convicted of a crime at any point, that along with punishment to be delivered by the US government, I would most likely have been deported from the country.

With this as background I am outraged by the backlash against the Arizona law, which only mirrors the federal law, and which makes no onerous demands on legal residents. I have said to many people that I will look for ways to go to Arizona and spend money there.

This is just another ploy to tear the Unites States apart from within, and as one of its newest citizens, this grieves me deeply.

Blessings,
Andy

Duplicity

President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner, and State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley, have denounced the new Arizona illegal immigration law. Oh, by the way, all five of them have publicly admitted they have not read the law. Now that’s government you can believe in, and trust to represent you fairly, and do the right thing. Right ....

I just read the law. It took me 20 minutes.

Latinos are protesting, and, based on interviews with them and the signs they carry, they fear that Arizona police will stop any Latino looking person and “ask for their papers” – not surprising since President Obama expressed that same concern. Yet the Arizona law specifically prohibits police from doing that very thing. Federal law already requires non-citzens to carry documentation on their person, and the Arizona law prohibits police from asking to see that documentation unless the person has been detained for violating some other law. Furthermore, racial profiling is specifically prohibited. In fact, the Arizona law is completely consistent with existing Federal law (you’d think the U.S. Attorney General would know that).

Administration officials, including the President, are making inflammatory public statements that are outright falsehoods. In so doing, the Administration is once again dividing the country, this time along ethnic lines, which is of course consistent with previous Administration efforts to divide us along racial and socioeconomic lines. (Does that make the President responsible or irresponsible?) Don’t I remember Obama campaigning on “unifying the country”, based on “post-partisan” politics. The “great unifyiner”? I don’t think so – more like the “great divider”.

The Spin Goes On

In order to ensure that I hear all sides of issues, I spend some time watching MSNBC, CNN, and some network news shows, and I frequently listen to Public Broadcasting Radio – balancing it all with a steady dose of talk radio and FOX News. I am continually amazed by the clever spin from all sides; but, since the Democrats won the presidency and both houses, the spin has reached numbing heights.

Today has been a perfect example. The unemployment numbers were just released, and the rate climbed from 9.7% to 9.9%, yet more jobs were created than lost – a seeming contradiction. The answer, of course, is that the “unemployment” rate does not accurately portray unemployment – it only counts those people who are actively seeking employment through local/state/federal government unemployment offices. The number is always much lower than the actual number of folks out of work, because, once the unemployment checks run out, many people stop looking through the unemployment office. Some continue to look using other means, some work “under the table”, some work part-time, some become self-employed as a cottage industry, and I suppose some just hang out at home. These folks are often called “underemployed”, a rate which is often double the official unemployment rate. Anyway, each Spring, as summer jobs begin to open up, many of these folks once again register at the unemployment office, thus raising the official “unemployment rate”. At the same time, the summer jobs employ many people, thus creating many new jobs.

Both of those phenomena happened the past month and were reflected in today’s seemingly contradictory job figures. All that is fine, and even encouraging, but it is hardly worthy of the response exploding out of the “mainstream” media and press. They have been reveling all day, ecstatic and even delirious with this “evidence” that the Obama economic stimuli are finally taking hold. Their spin is that the improving economy is drawing the underemployed back into the work force, witness the fact that the unemployment rate went up.

So, let me get this straight. If the unemployment rate goes down, that’s good because it proves that Obama’s economic policies are working; and, if the unemployment rate goes up, that’s good because it also proves that Obama’s economic policies are working. It’s as simple as that.

What, are you surprised? This double talk is totally consistent with recent history. For example, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama explain that development of the health care bill was conducted in secret behind closed doors, yet development of the bill was the most open and transparent legislation ever, just as the President promised. Similarly, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama refused to consider any of the hundreds of Republican proposals and amendments, yet the bill was developed with input from all parties, even though the Republicans stubbornly refused to participate in the process. The heath care bill had overwhelming support of the medical community and the public, even though 70% of doctors and 60% of the public opposed it. The most pork-laden budgets and stimulus packages in history were scrutinized line by line by President Obama himself to ensure a minimum number of “earmarks”. It goes on and on.

Do not be confused. The key to understanding all this is simple: listen to what they say and ignore what they actually do. Get it?

We should not fret. We should thank God that the Obama administration and the congress always do the right thing for us, even if we don’t understand or approve of it. Given how obviously dumb and incompetent we are, we should be eternally grateful that we are led by brilliant elitists who know better than we do. Politics, economics, and government are too complicated for our simple little minds, but have no fear, they will take care of us.

My dream come true: someone to take care of me and free me from troublesome ambition, drive, work ethic, individual effort, personal excellence, and freedom. Whew.

Arizona Law: Comments from Arizona State Senator

The following is a legitimate letter from an Arizona State Senator that generally supports my essay on the same subject.

I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which
I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer. Rancher Rob
Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I
participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence,
here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border
have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the
daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher
testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch
vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting
down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found
17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.

Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch
in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front,
1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the
drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are
violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the
only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.

One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in the
back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to
carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during
the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they
can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come
back.

The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away
with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not
allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around
chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them
back across the border.

Federal prisons have over 35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are
filled with illegal's. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement
that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.

The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried
about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people
coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better
life.

The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the
border states. We have been over run and once they are here we have the
burden of funding state services that they use. Education cost have been
over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our
State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions
to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are
not here legally. It has to stop.

The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to
stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an
organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our
population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation
of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect
the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.

I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not
do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them
because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the
point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a
North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government
will we live under?
How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico or any of the
other Central American or South American countries? We have already lost
our language, everything must be printed in Spanish also. We have
already lost our history it is no longer taught in our schools. And we
have lost our borders.

The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to
set up a Nazi Germany. Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts
will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was
an effort to try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and
employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local
law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop to
determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are
here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is
the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a
driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a
Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc..
So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped
walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in power in DC are
angry because we dare try and do something and that something the
Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the
"Transformation" to continue.

Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom
anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to
protect our Constitutional Republic. Living in America is not a right
just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a
responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the Constitution
the law of our land which says what you must do to be a citizen of this
country. Freedom is not free.

The BP Oil Spill

Let me begin by stating unequivocally that the BP oil spill is an environmental disaster – a terrible tragedy. Good men died, many more will lose their livelihood, and the environmental and economic repercussions will plague us for years to come.

The Deepwater Horizon was an offshore exploration/production platform leased by BP. It caught on fire, blew up, and sunk into 5,000 feet of water. Tragically and as yet unexplainably, none of the multiple redundant safety systems cut off the oil flow, and the pipes are now leaking huge volumes of oil into the Gulf. Bad weather has impaired efforts to cut off the flow, and it may develop that the flow will not stop completely until adjacent pressure relief wells are drilled – an effort requiring several months at best.

The Deepwater Horizon was a state-of-the-art platform. It was not tethered or anchored in any way to the bottom. It used computer controlled thrusters and GPS to “dynamically position” itself within a few feet of the same spot, thus allowing it to operate in waters nearly two miles deep. Its sister rigs have operated safely in many locales.

Even if it was a design flaw, and the experts are somehow able to re-create the scenario that led to the disaster and fix the design, the impact will be felt for many years to come. Scarier still, the Deepwater Horizon has been an ongoing target of jihadists and eco-terrorists, but, even if this turns out to be a terrorist attack and not a design flaw or mistake, the world will be slow to regain its confidence in offshore technology. The histrionics, hype, and hyper-criticism of the anti-oil crowd will continually inflame the issue. Why blame the poor benighted terrorists when we have the oil industry to villainize.

Logic will be no match for the hysteria. For example, there are mounds of data clearly demonstrating that the volume of leaks from tankers and other ships vastly exceeds any leaks from offshore rigs, including this one. From a strictly environmental viewpoint, therefore, the best way to minimize oil leakage is to stop using tankers to import our oil. We should instead replace that imported oil by developing our own oil fields – onshore and offshore. But who needs logic? There will be a great hue and cry to stop all offshore drilling in US coastal waters, and efforts to halt onshore drilling will closely follow.

Stand by. Cap and Trade cannot be far behind – then again who cares if our economy tanks as long as offshore rigs are banned.

Arizona's Law on Illegal Immigrants

Hispanic folks all over the country are demonstrating against the recently enacted Arizona law allowing police to detain illegal immigrants. Most of those demonstrators are here legally, so why are they opposed to this legislation? The answer is simple: folks have been led to believe that the new law allows police to stop anyone who looks hispanic and demand to see their “papers”. The NY Times has drawn the Nazi analogy, and the president has further inflamed the issue by conflating legal and illegal immigrants in his speeches. Yesterday he spoke twice on the issue, using only the word “immigrants”, thus implying that the law applies to all immigrants, legal and illegal. Administration officials have even suggested that they may direct ICE and the Border Patrol not to accept custody of any illegal immigrants detained by the Arizona police.

Here’s the truth.

• Existing Federal law requires all non-citizens in the US to carry, on their person, documentation showing they are here legally. Thus the new Arizona law simply directs police to enforce the existing Federal law.
• The new Arizona law forbids police from asking for documentation unless the person has already been detained for some other violation, so police will not be arbitrarily stopping hispanic people.
• Most of the police in Arizona are hispanic, so they clearly won’t be abusing the law.
• Arizona has neither the means nor the will to enforce this new law. No one in Arizona likes this law, including the legislators who passed it, yet there is overwhelming support for the law, even among hispanic residents. Why? Because the purpose of passing the law was simply to get the Federal government to do their job – protect our borders. Arizona has made a simple statement: “If the Federal government will not protect us, we will protect ourselves”.
• The criminals here are the drug cartels and gang members who are illegally crossing the border and murdering, kidnapping, and otherwise terrorizing law-abiding Arizonans. Yet, the administration and the media are villainizing the Arizonans and ignoring the actual criminals – go figure.

Come on folks, the answer to this issue is relatively straight-forward.

First address the crisis – stop the flow across the porous border. Easy. Use the National Guard to guard our southern border for a couple of years until we can finish building a good fence – a high, strong double fence with dogs and border patrol in between the two fences and sonar monitors to detect tunneling. Please do not dare to call this fence a wall. Walls keep people in (think prisons and Berlin), while fences keep people out (think your neighbor’s dog, and attractive nuisances like swimming pools). We not only have a right to protect our borders – it is the Federal Government’s solemn duty to do so.

Ok, so the first step is straight-forward: protect our borders from invasion. The next step is much more complex. We need to devise a means of legally allowing immigrants temporary access to work at jobs Americans don’t want to do. We also need to provide those folks a path to citizenship if they so choose. All of this is very complicated and controversial, and we should have a nice rational and civilized national discussion on the best means of achieving these goals AFTER WE SECURE THE BORDER.

In the meantime, I believe President Bush, President Obama, and their congresses have been derelict in their duty. Do your damned job, Mr. President, and Arizona will not have to push you into it. As for your adoring media and press: shame on you for obfuscating the truth in the service of blatant political partisanship.

GM Pays Back TARP Loan

Ed Whitacre, the Obama-appointed CEO of GM, just announced that GM is paying off the $6 billion TARP loan it owes the US government - sounds like GM is coming back.

Let’s see if I’ve got this straight.

The story began in early 2009, when the US government pumped around $15 billion into GM to bail them out and prevent them from going into bankruptcy. Well, the $15 billion evaporated and they went into bankruptcy anyway. Then, the US government used an additional $30 billion of Obama-money (money we either printed or borrowed, but certainly didn’t have) in exchange for GM stock, with another $6 billion pumped in as a TARP loan. All told, the US taxpayers were on the hook for about $50 billion. The bankruptcy deal ended up with GM ownership divided among: the US government - about 60%; Canada - about 12%; the United Autoworkers Union - about 18%; and various bondholders - about 10%. Existing GM stockholders were wiped out.

Well, GM just announced they are paying off the $6 billion dollar TARP loan. Now, although GM did turn a small profit in 1Q10, it was nowhere near $6 billion, which begs the question, “Where did GM get the money?” Funny you should ask. It turns out that, in addition to the $6 billion TARP loan, the government had set aside additional funds in “escrow” for GM, in the event of another financial crisis. Aha! Yep, Mr. Whitacre failed to mention that GM used this escrow money to “pay off” the loan – sort of like borrowing money on your house to pay off your car loan. You still owe the money, and GM still owes the $6 billion.

Nonetheless, the mainstream media and press, as well as the White House, are heralding GM’s recovery and the fine job the government has obviously done in running the company. Feel better? Confidence in Obama restored?

All of this also brings up another issue that I’ve been pondering. Assuming GM stays profitable, they plan on selling stock again and using the money to buy back the government’s shares, at which time we will no doubt be inundated with huzzahs about the taxpayers having recovered all the money “invested” in GM – well, a lot of it, anyway. Hmm. So, what will have happened? Absent government interference, GM would have declared bankruptcy and re-organized as a leaner, debt free company, with no burdensome union contracts. Instead, the government did interfere, GM declared bankruptcy anyway, and did reorganize into a leaner company. But, that leaner company now has to buy itself back from the US and Canadian Governments; and, the very unions that caused many of GM’s financial woes in the first place are now poised to become the major shareholders.

Feel like buying more GM stock?

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?

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.

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.

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.