Health Care: The Next Round

Open Letter to Senators Warner and Webb

Thank you for voting against cloture on the Senate Health Care Bill. I do appreciate your willingness to vote against your party so that the American people and members of the Senate have some time to read the bill they will be voting on.

In prior communications, I have expressed my concerns around this unprecedented takeover by government of 17% of our economy. I am not in favor of the bill and do not share many of your views about its perceived benefit. In prior correspondence with you, I have outlined my suggestions for “reforming” health care, and will not repeat them here.

When voting on this matter, please take into consideration the actual “accomplishments” of government run programs:

· In 1965, the "Great Society" was created. Eight billion dollars was spent that year; today we are spending $500B annually.

· In 1977, the Department of Energy was created to "make us independent of foreign oil." Now it is a bureaucracy of 18,000 people with a $25B annual budget. We are still dependent on foreign oil, are not allowed to drill off our own shores (but foreign governments can), and have not built a new nuclear power plant since the late 1970s.

· In 1983, a Trust Fund was created to ensure that Social Security was sound for the retirement of baby boomers in 2011. After 25 years of increased payroll taxes, $2.5T was “borrowed” from that fund and every penny spent on something else. Now we want to” borrow” another $1T to "fix" health care while cutting Medicare entitlements to retiring seniors by $500B.

· In 2008, TARP and "stimulus" bills authorized another $1.5T, which is new debt, has not stimulated much of anything except "creating or saving" government – not private sector – jobs.

Not a good track record. I think you need to cut your losses and go back to old fashioned Keynesian economics. Harding / Coolidge in the mid-1020s, Kennedy in the mid-1960s, Reagan in the early 1980s, and Bush in his first administration – contrary to predictions by opponents – cut taxes and government income rose and economic activity and prosperity increased. Hong Kong became an economic powerhouse under a low flat tax. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Russia have adopted flat taxes ranging from 13% to 33%, all with very positive economic effects. These successes are being copied by the Ukraine and the Slovak Republics. Canada is starting to dismantle portions of its Universal Health Care system because it does not work. In contrast, Japan tried to “spend” its way out of its 1980 recession and it still has not recovered.

Our recent economic meltdown is not traceable to free enterprise run amok. Damage to large portions of our economy is traceable to government social programs and government regulation that create improper economic incentives: the Community Reinvestment Act’s emphasis on lending to unqualified borrowers; Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency regulations, which are at cross purposes; and government graft and corruption (i.e., 13% graft in Medicare and Medicaid, as documented by independent watchdog agencies), to mention only a few.

The next “bubble” is going to be the American debt. Only capitalism – not socialism – will fix this problem, if it is fixable. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, “The problem with [the Democrats' ] socialism is, at some point, you run out of other peoples’ money.” The insertion is mine.

Which is More Dense: Solar Energy or Politicians?

In a prior article, (Cure for Energy Depression – More Sun?) , I conservatively estimated that 8,800 acres of solar collectors would be needed to replace the generating output of a 50 year old, 2259 Mw fossil plant that sits on 800 acres of land: 400 acres for generation and 400 acres of ecological preserve. Well, now the results are in: Florida Power and Light has just announced the opening of its Arcadia, Florida, DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Facility, at which Obama will preside and tout the benefits of solar energy.

According to FP&L information, the DeSoto Next Gen plant will produce 25 Mw, consists of 90,500 solar panels, and sits on 180 acres of land. It will produce “enough electricity for 3,000 homes.”

So, if my math is correct, for a modern, solar plant to produce 2,259 Mw of power, 16,265 acres of land are required (180 x (2,259/25)). If one corrects my original estimate of 8,800 acres by eliminating the fossil plant’s ecological preserve acreage from the calculation, the original calculation yields an estimated 17,600 acres of solar cells. In other words, the electricity need of the 2.7 million people in the Tampa Bay area will require more than 160,000 acres (250 square miles) of solar panels. Alternatively, ten fossil plants – 2,259 Mw capacity each – sitting on a total of 4,000 acres (6.2 square miles) will provide the electricity needs of 2.7 million people.

Okay, so “Next Gen” solar photovoltaic arrays are more efficient than I estimated, or perhaps the solar insolation in Florida is higher than I assumed in my calculation. Still, the estimate is pretty accurate AND it PROVES that solar energy is arguably less dense than most politicians and environmentalists. You will never smelt steel, produce semi-conductors, or manufacture any other high-technology, high energy density products using this form of energy BECAUSE you will run out of land. In fact, any right thinking (pardon the pun) individual, using the same logic an environmentalist would use, should be concerned about denuding large acreages of virgin swamp (or pristine forest, if that is more ecologically appealing to you) to produce “clean energy.”

So which is denser: solar energy or politicians? From an engineering science perspective, solar energy is less dense. From a political science perspective, politicians are less dense. Politicians are not concerned about the science or economics of the situation; they are only concerned about votes. And when it comes to voting, the politicians know they can garner more votes per square mile promoting solar energy at the expense of our economy and our long energy interests.

VDOE Standards of Learning for Economics and Personal Finance

The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) has requested comments on its proposed economics and personal finance standards of learning. The following comments were provided by me on October 9, 2009. If you are a Virginia resident, I suggest that you review the proposed standards and comment.

Open Letter to Virginia Department of Education Concerning Proposed Standards of Learning for a Public School Curriculum to Teach Economics and Personal Finance

I agree with the VDOE’s goal that an understanding of economics and personal finance is important to young people, as they learn to manage successfully their own time, money, and resources, and become informed citizens in a increasingly globally integrated, interdependent society. However, establishing standards of learning is only the first step in this process. The SOLs, as you have stated them, provide a broad roadmap for what needs to be taught. They do not address the expected outcomes, how it will be taught, or the actual content of instruction. My comments: (1) request clarification on objectives, which appear to be loosely defined, (2) request that VDOE specify the textbooks that will be used, and (3) request that VDOE identify the qualifications of and preparatory instruction that will be provided to teachers who will conduct this very important course.

After a review of the curriculum’s stated objectives, my particular concerns are with specific objectives that explore the interrelationship between a free market economic system and the role of government in that system. Specifically, I am interested in understanding what will be taught in these areas. I am concerned that, like so much of current public education, it can be co-opted by persons who do not share my traditional, historical perspective on the formation and objective success of American free-market economics. Specific comments on the SOLs are:


EFP.7 b) describing government’s role in stabilizing the economy; c) describing sources of government revenue; and d) explaining balanced-budget, deficit, and national debt.

What exactly is to be taught as part of this objective? If the bias is to promote the virtues and success of Keynesian economics as practiced by Roosevelt or the current administration, I would oppose such instruction. However, a balanced discussion that compares and contrasts the practices of the Hoover, Kennedy, Reagan, and G.W. Bush administration to that of Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, and Obama administrations would be fair. Text references: Folsom, B., New Deal, Raw Deal and Simon, W., A Time for Truth.

EFP.8 in its entirety, which requires the student to demonstrate knowledge of the role of government in a market economy by d.) explaining that governments redistribute wealth.

Again, what is to be taught as part of this objective? While it is a fact the government does redistribute wealth the real question that must be answered is to what purpose and to what extent is this necessary? A good text that addresses the role of government in a free market is Thomas Sowell’s text Basic Economics.

ALL terminal objectives (which is what I assume you have listed in your document) should be broken down into enabling objectives that include a measure of acceptable accomplishment. For example, “Upon completion of this objective, the student will be able to state the three root causes of the Great Depression: (1) ‘Cause 1,’ (2) ‘Cause 2,’ (3) ‘Cause 3’). This would go a long way to “flesh out” what is required and make it clear to the teacher, student, and public if that objective has been accomplished.

Noticeably absent from the learning objectives is a requirement that the students complete an actual income tax return. In this context, it would be good to teach each student that 50% of American taxpayers pay 97% of all federal income tax. Twenty percent pay 3%. Thirty percent either pay nothing or receive transfer of payments (Earned Income Tax Credit) from the top fifty-three percent. This might prove to be an interesting discussion if compared and contrasted to the redistribution of wealth discussion alluded to in EFP 8.

With respect to a text, I recommend that VDOE disclose, at this point in time, the textbooks that will support the curriculum. While I fully anticipate that such a request will be declined because the curriculum will not be taught for several years and it will be argued that it is impossible to select a text at this time, I suggest that you refer to existing texts that you find acceptable today to give the public a feel for content and set an expectation against which the public can judge your final selection. In the absence of any response from VDOE, I recommend that you consider Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics. The book is unique in that it does not present economics from a mathematical perspective, but utilizes real world examples to illustrate economic principles. It can be understood by anyone using simple logic.

Last, I propose that you disclose required teacher qualifications and the approach, schedule, and training program content that you plan to use in preparing teachers to present this material. This is as important as the instruction itself.

I have posted this letter on my blog and the HR Teaparty blog. I am encouraging other Virginia citizens to review and comment on the proposed SOLs. I have also forwarded a copy of these comments to my state representatives and Del. Bob Tata. I will be following the progress of curriculum implementation closely. Over the past thirty years, traditional values-based Americans have not paid sufficient attention to the actions of government and as a result have ceded the moral high ground to post-modern relativists, who have undermined the nuclear family, the church, education, the media, and government institutions. Control of our economy and the principles that underlie economic freedom are one of their last objectives. Rest assured that I will continue to work diligently to make sure any economics curriculum is taught from a factual and balanced perspective.

DNR: Health Care Reform

Open Letter to the Congress of the United States

As we debate whether health care reform lives or dies, I want to reiterate my opposition: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) the bills in their current form. I believe the current bills should be scrapped, and congress should tackle health care with the following principles in mind.

1. No public option
2. No coverage for illegal aliens.
3. Allow individuals to OWN their own policies with health savings accounts and make them transportable between jobs.
4. No reduction in Medicare, Social Security. If you think $500B over the next 10 years can be saved through reduction in graft and corruption, then go after that. You should be doing that anyway ... that is your job. Funnel ACTUAL savings from your graft and corruption initiatives DIRECTLY to the states so that they can provide catastrophic health services to those without coverage via Medicaid, an EXISTING program. No more government programs that are incapable of paying for themselves... use what you have and use the existing government workforce more efficiently and effectively.
5. Remove barriers to insurance companies so that they can provide coverage across state boundaries.
6. Eliminate pre-existing conditions from insurance policies.
7. Require insurance providers to disclose costs, coverage, and other performance statistics on the internet. Allow insured persons to post their experience with the insurer on the internet.
8. Require posting of drug prices, at the point of provision, on the internet.
9. Create incentives for drug companies, insurance companies, government, and non-profit organizations to invest in student scholarships and health care infrastructure to allow ALL qualified students to go to medical school.
10. Take on the AMA if they proscribe through licensure the MAXIMUM number of doctors entering the profession. Their job should be define and measure competence, not regulate supply in order to artificially raise salaries.
11. Tackle medical malpractice tort reform.
12. Tackle medical regulation reform: I believe the government in general OVER REGULATES industries.

In short, create a FREE Market, where supply and demand can seek a balance. As Ronald Reagan said, "Government is the problem, not the solution."

National Security

Open Letter to the Congress of the United States

My understanding is that the President has held one national security briefing in the last month. The number of Presidential appearances on television and at town halls has been greater than the number of days he has been in office. His administration has spent more time seeking partnerships between government and large business (GE), between government and corrupt private non-profit organizations (ACORN), and between government and federally funded organizations that indoctrinate and promote administration programs (the National Endowment of the Arts), than he has with his cabinet.

Having managed large businesses, I am familiar with the concept of span of control and the need to focus on key issues in order to achieve a business’s core objectives. This president does not appear to appreciate this concept, abrogating his responsibility to DIRECTLY involve himself in the two most important issues facing this country: security and economic recovery. This raises serious questions about who is in charge, in my view. Instead, he wants to “remake” the country by asserting government control over large segments of our economy, bypassing the checks and balances of the constitution through the appointment of “czars” of questionable fealty to historical American principles, and making the world more unsafe by not supporting democratic movements in Georgia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Iran.

I suggest that you counsel the president on his responsibilities and faithfully uphold your responsibility to ensure that ALL legislation be passed by congress rather than abrogate this responsibility to the administration’s ever expanding federal regulation. In the absence of perceived progress toward these goals, I will ensure that I exercise the small influence I have on my family, friends, communities, and the organizations that I support to oppose the unconstitutional practices, policies, and profligate spending of this administration. The results of my actions will be measured at the ballot box.

Census

Open Letter to the Congress of the United States

With respect to the upcoming Census, I request that you support legislation that reaffirms the Congress’s position that the Census conforms to the specific requirements of the United States Constitution, as amended. My reading of the document would lead me to believe that said Census (enumeration) would apply only to citizens of the United States, and exclude illegal aliens and other persons who are residing in the United States but are legal citizens of other countries. Also, the Constitution calls for an enumeration: a counting of persons not collection of personal or private information which could be inappropriately used by the government to expand its powers and influence over the personal freedoms which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

With respect to the manner in which this information is collected, the process should be open, visible to the public, and performed by a part of the government that is subject to oversight and control by congress and not by the executive branch. Because of the political value of the census (representation in congress and apportionment of government funds), the process should be a non-partisan as possible.

Senate Climate Control Legislation

I do not support the current Senate bill nor the prior House of Representative’s bill to reduce greenhouse emissions. My opposition is based on actual science not political science. Read on if you are interested in the scientific basis; count the vote if you are only interested in politics.

When my daughter was five, she asked me how the trees flapped their leaves to make the wind blow. She taught me a very valuable lesson: correlation does not mean cause. And so it is with CO2 and global warming. Perhaps it is a lesson that the congress of the United States needs to learn.

As the senate considers fast-tracking a climate bill that will require a 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 – at an unstated cost to the taxpayer and to our economy – one should ask some fundamental questions about the cause of “global warming,” before taking action. Otherwise, the economic consequences will be more disastrous than the government’s mandate to supplement gasoline with ethanol, providing farmers with economic incentives to allocate up to 30% of the United States arable land to produce less than 50 gallons of fuel per acre. As a result, food prices have risen and actual vehicle miles per gallon have decreased, because ethanol does not contain the same higher heating value (energy content) as carbon-based fuels.

My global warming conclusions are supported by a scientific study, Increased Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by Robinson, A.B., et al, reviewed and endorsed by more than 9,000 Ph.D.s (http://www.petitionproject.org/) , and the testimony of David Evans, the scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto protocol (http://mises.org/story/2571 and http://mises.org/story/2795).

The conclusion of the Robinson research is that the earth is warming at a rate of 0.5 degrees Centigrade per 100 years, that this trend is naturally occurring, as the earth recovers from what is referred to as the Little Ice Age, and is driven by solar radiation, not man-made CO2 production. The current warming trend can be traced to about 1800. The researchers conclude that over the last 3,000 years, the earth’s temperature has varied within a 3 degree Celsius range. Arctic temperature variation correlates strongly with solar activity and not with world hydrocarbon use.

In fact, the study concludes that overall the climate has improved. The number of tornados has decreased, the number of hurricanes has remained constant, and rainfall has increased. During the past 50 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 22%, much of that due to human activity, but no correlation exists between temperature increase and carbon dioxide production. In fact the major effect has been to increase plant growth and biological diversity (that is, a positive effect).

Van Go ... Van Gone

Letter to the Editor, Virginian Pilot, September 7, 2009

In your September 7, 2009, article “Critics led Obama adviser to resign, he says,” you selectively quote facts to infer that the principal reasons “conservatives” called for Van Jones’ resignation as the “Green Jobs Czar” was his inadvertent signature on a “9/11 Truther” petition and his public statement that Republicans are “A—holes.” Nothing could be further from the “truth.” Being called names does not offend this conservative: I have come to expect it from the left. What offends me about Jones are facts that you do not report in your paper: he is a self avowed Communist, who was selected and vetted solely by the Obama administration and not the congress, operates outside the purview of congressional oversight, and controls $30B in public funding.

In 1992, Jones was quoted as saying, “In jail I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ’This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people, I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary … I was a rowdy nationalist, on April 28 and then the verdicts came down on April 29. By August, I was a communist.” In 2005 he said, “ I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of the radical ends.” His four year old son is named after a militant Marxist guerilla. This is not a person I, or any American, should want advising the President, unanswerable to Congress, and controlling a $30B budget.

President Obama said during his campaign that if one wanted to know how he would govern to examine those to whom he would look for advice. Well, I did, and the picture is not pretty. Van Jones is one of many in his cadre of 37+ “Czars” who have questionable ties to socialist, Marxist, Communist ideology and organizations.

Reframing the Health Care Debate

An Open Letter to the President, Congressman Nye, Senator Webb, and Senator Warner

Nancy Pelosi has recently indicated she may be willing to substitute a "trigger" in the healthcare legislation in place of a binding requirement for a "public option." Her "thinking," if you want to call it that, is to give insurance companies time to drive costs down or else the public option will be implemented. The fallacy of this argument is that the "trigger" levels can never be met by insurance companies, without a concomitant elimination of layers of regulation and artificial Medicare fee schedules, set by government and to which private insurance rates are tied. In fact, I believe her strategy is to ADD regulation and price controls, which would in effect "trigger" the public option.

Let this citizen be clear. Reframing this debate by using "words that work" phraseology or substituting new concepts of "triggers" and "co-ops" for the concept of a public option will not work and do not change the underlying facts of the debate. I do not want out of control government managing another one-sixth of the economy through social engineering. Congress would be better off spending its time figuring out how to pay for the debt it has incurred and scaling back the programs that are driving that debt: inefficient, corrupt, and in most cases, ineffective government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and VA run healthcare (among many others).

My freedom is more important to me than my health, which I seem to be managing just fine on my own because I OWN IT. It is unfortunate that I was not given the option to own and manage my own "social security" (viz., a private option to Social Security, an ironic concept, don't you think). If I had been given that option, I would have three times the amount of money I expect to receive from Social Security, under present forecasts. Unfortunately, the government did not invest that money, they traded it for IOUs to China and spent it on programs like the National Endowment of the Arts, which the administration is now trying to co-opt into producing art, music, and slogans, to market its policies. Why should I believe that "public" health care should turn out differently?

In closing, I recommend that you obtain a copy of Thomas Sowell's book, Basic Economics, AND READ IT. Apparently, either Congress does not understand basic free-market economics or they choose to ignore it in an attempt to "remake" America in the image of European socialism.

Where Have All The Marxists Gone?

An Open Letter to Senators Webb and Warner and

Congressman Nye

I have extensively studied the background of Mark Lloyd, who was recently hired to be FCC Chief Diversity Officer, a new position at that agency. It is clear to me, based on the facts, that he is a committed Marxist -- at best -- and should not be allowed to serve in this position. I request that you investigate his qualifications and fitness to serve in this position, including conduct of a thorough FBI Background Check.

Mr. Lloyd has proposed that private broadcasters pay licensing fees equal to 100% of their operating budget, which would then be used to fund National Public Radio, the employer of people like Bill Moyer, a disciple of Herbert Marcuse (see http://www.marcuse.org/: he is listed on this site). Marcuse was a disciple of the Frankfurt School, the author of Critical Theory, the basis of Marxist Cultural Revolution. If private broadcasters do not meet Lloyd’s definition of “diversity,” they can be fined up to $250 million.

His appointment is ridiculous, and shows how out of touch congress is with the assault on American freedoms and values. Lloyd has similar designs on the Internet.

In an age of 200+ cable channels, 1000s of radio channels, our country is better served by terminating the funding to public radio and let choice and the free market determine what we listen to or watch. In fact, Mr. Lloyd's proposal at best is nothing less than an attempt to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine through the back door. At worst, it is an attempt by the Government to control the media and eliminate first amendment rights.

You have been elected to represent the people. The Constitution, which you do not seem to understand, is about personal freedom not government control. Your authority is derived from the people: not the other way round. Because you do not seem to understand this concept, I will do everything in my power to make sure it is driven home in the next election cycle.

Healthcare -- An Executive Summary

The following was sent to me by Dave Leather, a personal friend, who reports he received it from a friend who voted for Obama.

"Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it and whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke."

Elections matter.

Congressman Nye's Stealth Town Hall Meeting

The following is an open letter to Congressman Glenn Nye (D-VA). I think it is self explanatory.

Dear Congressman Nye:

I was hoping that you would have a town hall meeting during August in Virginia Beach to discuss healthcare. After reviewing your online calendar, it was apparent this was not in the cards. The closest event was office hours at Little Creek, on August 17, at the Base Exchange. As a civilian, I am sure that I would not be allowed on base. So, I just chalked this up to the fact you wished to duck and cover on probably the most important domestic issue facing the country -- Healthcare Reform, Health Insurance Reform, or whatever euphemistic title the democratically controlled congress is using today.

So it was with surprise, that I learned that you have scheduled a breakfast get together with your democratic supporters on August 22 at Mom's Kitchen / Scandal's Lounge (how appropriate!) to entertain their questions on HR 3200. As a conservative, I have been following your votes carefully and have actually been somewhat impressed with your fiscally conservative position on many issues; but, after this duck and cover, you have lost all credibility with me.

I will keep in touch with your office and make a point to attend a future, local public event, if you decide to come out of hiding.

Regressive Taxation With Progressive Representation

The following allegory describing the inequity and fragileness of the current progressive tax system was sent to me via e-mail. It has been attributed to various authors, including various economic professors all of whom have denied authorship. Even so, when questioned, none of the economists have denied the truth of the underlying argument. As summarized in the e-mail: “For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.”

The underlying assumption of this allegory is that 40% of Americans pay NO federal income tax. This is an indisputable fact: some may argue that the number is as high as 47%. The remaining federal taxpayers progressively pay the income tax, with the top ten percent paying approximately 60% of the total income tax dollars paid to the federal treasury. It is true that ALL taxpayers pay payroll taxes, which cover THEIR PORTION OF social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the federal portion of unemployment. THAT SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE FACT THAT ONLY 53% TO 60% OF TAXPAYERS PAY THE INCOME TAX WHICH FUNDS EVERYTHING ELSE THAT RUNS THE COUNTRY.

The allegory says it all:

Suppose that every day, the same ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.The fifth would pay $1.The sixth would pay $3.The seventh would pay $7.The eighth would pay $12.The ninth would pay $18.The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving s). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10'.

'Yeah, that's right,a exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got'

'That's true' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Curbing B-Czar Behavior: an Open Letter to Congress

To Senators Warner and Webb and Congressman Nye:

The bloom is off the rose. The picture is becoming clearer to the average citizen, who is interested in his or her unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as envisioned by our founding fathers. This administration's agenda is to "re-make" America in a way that is not congruent with the fundamental principles that underlie the Constitution of the United States, which is the basic contractual agreement between the People of the United States and its appointed representatives.

The appointment -- without any review and consent by the congress-- of 32 "Czars," whose roles, responsibilities, and actions directly impact large segments of the US economy, is unconstitutional and an abrogation by Congress of its fidicuary responsiblity under Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Furthermore, this action -- when viewed in the context of the recent "firings" of the Inspector Generals (IGs) overseeing Americorp and Amtrak, reckless deficit spending, and nomination of a supreme court justice whose writings and racist remarks make it clear she is more interested in social justice than constitutional justice -- clearly demonstrate that the administration's socialist / fascist agenda is being forced on America while bypassing the checks and balances required by the Constitution.

This citizen asks that you oppose this administration's unconstitutional policies and practices. Czars, cap and trade, healthcare "reform,", and expanded deficit spending are nothing more than ruses whose real purpose is to choke capitalism, place more control in the hands of a centralized government, and limit the People's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I oppose the administration's continued usurpation of legislative powers that legitimately are the congress's responsibility. Perhaps, congress's time would be better spent ignoring the president and focusing on representing the people and making the constitutional system we have work.

Social Justice in the Supreme Court

On Tuesday (July 14, 2009), the Senate Judiciary Committee met to review the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor as the next Justice to the Supreme Court. The most effective examination of her record was by Lindsey Graham (R-SC), which has been captured on You Tube in four parts: Graham vs. Sotomayor (Part 1); Graham vs. Sotomayor (Part 2); Graham vs. Sotomayor (Part 3); Graham vs. Sotomayor (Part 4) . If you are concerned about the direction of the country and what this nomination could mean to our constitutional form of government, this is a must watch.

If one examines Sotomayor's judicial record, you will find one that most have characterized as left of center, but within mainstream thinking. But, if you look beyond this record to her character and ideology, as documented by her associations, her evaluation by peers, and her speeches over years, you see a different person. My take away is this: she, in many respects, is just like Obama -- a social progressive, rags to riches success story, with a lot of help from affirmative action. However, when you dig deeper, you have to ask the question, based upon her expressed worldview, how will she vote when she is not constrained by established court precedent but is able to decide what is and what is not precedent and has life-time job security? In making your decision, perhaps you should listen to the Chicago WBEZ 2001 interview with Obama on his view of the Constitution and how it has negatively influenced civil rights. Do you think he nominated Sotomayor because she might share these views?

Unfortunately, I believe we are about to find out because there is no way to stop it.

Resisting the Solar Impulse

If modern politics teaches us anything, it is that one needs to frame political debate around a “poster child” that illustrates the point to be made. In the case of solar energy as a serious alternative to more dense energy sources – such as oil, coal, natural gas, fission, or fusion – the poster child is the Solar Impulse, a sun- powered airplane prototype.

In June, a Swiss team, headed by Bertrand Piccard announced the completion of the $98-million (USD) Solar Impulse airplane (left), which has a wingspan of a Boeing 747, weighs less than a small car, and powers itself through energy gathered by approximately 12,000 solar cells. The airplane has four engines, which develop 40 horsepower (viz., the power of the Wright Brothers’ original aircraft), allowing the craft to takeoff at 22 mph and cruise at a maximum speed of 44 mph. Its payload: two men in cramped quarters and a 400 kg (880 lb) lithium ion battery, which supplies power during periods of no sunlight. The goal: circumnavigation of the world in 2012 over a 25 day period. Oh, I forgot to mention that it cannot be flown in adverse weather: it is too delicate.

While the Solar Impulse is a technological novelty, it truly illustrates the practical limitations of solar energy. All one has to do is compare the Solar Impulse to planes that are conventionally powered and of similar wingspan … like the Boeing 747 to which its designers have compared it. According to the official Boeing website, the 747-200 (2 class-configuration)with a wingspan of 195 ft., 8 inches, carries 452 passengers, 6,190 cubic feet of cargo, with a maximum lift off weight of 833,000 pounds. It flies at Mach 0.84 (555 mph), with a range of 7,900 statute miles. For the math challenged, this performance would allow circumnavigation of the earth, by 452 passengers and 6,190 cubic feet of cargo in approximately 2 days.

So let’s bring this rainbow down to the ground: the sun’s energy – while it may be plentiful and even prove technologically feasible AND economical to accomplish some tasks – cannot provide a practical, continuous source of production grade energy for aviation or most other commercial purposes, which is the mother’s milk of an advanced, technological, competitive society.

To further illustrate my point, in May 2009, Obama promoted the government’s construction of a 140-acre solar array at Nellis Air Force Base, at a cost of $100M USD. The installed capacity is 14 megawatts of power or 30.1 gigawatt-hours of energy per year. Compare this to the three-unit Arizona Public Service Palo Verde nuclear plant built in the late 1970s, built at a cost of $5.6B USD (in 1970s dollars). In 2007, the three Palo Verde units produced 26,782 gigawatt-hours of electricity. Correcting the construction cost of the reactors for inflation, each reactor unit costs approximately $4.35B in 2009 dollars or 41 times the cost of the solar array but produces 297 times more electricity, while occupying far less land. An equivalent Nellis Air Force Base solar array would require approximately 125,000 acres. Considering the nuclear plants have a projected operating lifetime of 50 years versus 30 for the solar array and the fact that nuclear plant design is cheaper by half to build today than it was thirty years ago, the life cycle cost of the solar alternative is about 15 times more expensive than the nuclear one.

According to Access to Energy, (October 2008, Vol. 36, No.3), “[i]f one ten-reactor Palo Verde nuclear plant were built in each of the 50 states, the United States could be a net exporter of $200 billion per year of energy rather than a net importer of $300 billion per year." While some might say this is electric energy and our dependence is principally on oil and therefore an unfair comparison, cheap nuclear electric energy (estimated at 1.6 cents per kilowatt – hour) can be used to directly power vehicles as well as transform carbon-based fuels such as oil shale, tars, coal, and methane calthrates, into fossil fuel. This would require an investment of approximately $2T USD, which would produce jobs, prosperity, and energy independence. Instead, our government is planning to spend $2T in stimulus, TARP, and social program deficit spending and proposes to transition our country to a energy infrastructure that, at best, might support the Gross Domestic Product of a third world country.

My advice to Obama: resist the Solar Impulse and place your bet on proven technology. Unfortunately, in the end , I do not believe the president or many on the left will take my advice. “Political” science always overshadows engineering science.

Who Says Politics is Not Logical

The Virginian Pilot (June 26,2009) reported that Congressman Glenn Nye, D-2nd District of Virginia, authored and passed an amendment to the 2010 $680 billion defense appropriation bill that cancels spending $46.3 million to dredge the harbor at Mayport, FL. The purpose of the dredging was to prepare the Mayport harbor to receive a new carrier, which the Navy had previously indicated they might transfer from Norfolk (Nye’s District) to Mayport, next year. Nye said that the amendment was not a hard sell in the house: “I think we had the power of logic on our side.” Nye, and his two republican co-sponsors, asserted that it does not make sense to authorize spending money for the dredging when the Navy has yet to definitively decide if it will deploy the carrier. Let's see ... if the port were dredged, that might favorably influence the Navy to redeploy the carrier, don't you think? Its also true it is not in Norfolk's interest to do so.

I find it amazing that in the case of the carrier -- which represents millions of dollars of revenue to the local economy – that the congress will delay spending money until it has a plan. But, in the case of bailouts, energy policy, and healthcare, congress is willing to spend trillions of dollars before any plan is in place.

The difficulty appears to be determining when logic is on your side.

Supplemental Appropriations Act 2009 - Open Letter to Congressman Glenn Nye

While I agree on continuing to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not agree with combining continuing funding resolutions for the war on terror with other funding. I would prefer seeing an up or down vote on defense matters.

Also, it is my recollection that Bush's continuing funding resolutions were ~$60B whereas this administration's continuing funding resolution is over ~$100B. Both parties' resolutions contain other funding measures. My recollection is that the democrats were irrate at continuing resolutions by Bush, but simply pass those proposed in a democratically controlled congress. Where is the outrage? What is the difference, other than an additional $40B for social programs? You guys are amazing in your ability to obfuscate the truth! However, I believe there are some of us that are watching and evaluating. Perhaps its time to be fiscally and morally responsible.

Open Letter to Congress and The President of the United States

I agree with 90% of what Bob Basso presents in his portrayal of Thomas Paine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA). Perhaps you guys in congress AND the president need to wake up and smell the coffee. To the extent that I am able, I will see to it that each of you is not returned to office. You are out of contact with the American people.

This message was sent via Congress.org, which uses the Capwiz·XC system. Congress.org is a free public service of Capitol Advantage and Knowlegis, LLC. You may access Congress.org here: http://congress.org

Lions, Tigers, and Health Scare – Oh My!

Its six months after Obama took the oath of office of the Presidency of the United States, and the car industry is for all practical purposes nationalized. The next target is healthcare.

As the administration’s argument goes, the impetus for big government reform is that, based on Census Bureau estimates, between 40 million and 50 million Americans are medically uninsured. Based on this fact, the administration further asserts that the uninsured are either not receiving healthcare or, if they are, that it is too expensive, inferior, and inefficient. They then infer from the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution that “healthcare“ is a “right” to be secured by Government and that the cost and inefficiencies in the current system can be remedied only by having private insurers compete with the federal government. Stated simply, the problem is big, the problem involves a constitutional right, and the problem can only be solved by government.

The Problem is Big

According to the Heritage Foundation, the 40M to 50M uninsured number includes “ roughly 7 million … illegal immigrants; roughly 9 million … persons on Medicaid; 3.5 million … persons already eligible for government health programs; and approximately 20 million [who] have, or live, in families with incomes greater than twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.” So where is the problem other than adults who should take personal responsibility for their own health by personally investing in it. Otherwise, the proposal pays $1.5T over ten years to cover 7M illegal immigrants. This may be popular with social progressives who would like to attract this voting base, but not with the 53% of Americans who pay 100% of the Federal Income Tax.

Healthcare is a Right

The social progressives point to what is referred to as the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) to justify healthcare and other social programs as a “right.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 states “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” From a social progressive’s perspective, this authorizes limitless government spending to take care of the masses. Unfortunately, this was not the perspective of James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution. James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792 in a letter to Henry Lee, “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.” [Brant, Irving the Fourth President - A Life of James Madison Eyre & Spottiswoode (Publishers) Ltd. London, 1970] Instead, the Founding Fathers saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for government provision of charity. Madison observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” [Madison, Hamilton, Jay in Federalist, No. 10] In other words, if charity were the responsibility of the government, the process would be (and has) become compromised and politicians would conspire with special interest to trade votes. The New Deal was characterized by this type of political corruption. [Folsom, B., New Deal Or Raw Deal, © 2008] The Founders, I believe, intended the General Welfare Clause to be interpreted as the pre-amble to the specifically enumerated powers that follow in the remaining clauses of Article 1, Section 8, which specifically define the terms introduced in Clause1.

Only Big Government Can Solve this Problem

Big government is not good at solving large problems: politicians’ behavior is generally motivated by political expediency and the next election cycle. George Santayana wrote in Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In other words, perhaps one should look to government’s past success in solving large problems, like Social Security, before another 20% of the economy is nationalized. When an accountant quizzed Roosevelt about the Ponzi scheme-like economic issues with social security, he said “I guess you are right about the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through … with those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.” [“Statements on Taxes by Members of this Administration in 1939,” in Morgenthau Diary, January 5, 1939]. Roosevelt’s perspective proved to be correct. Seventy years later, Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid have an off-balance sheet liability of $50T to $55T. This is equivalent to the annual GDP of all the people on the planet (currently 6B) working for one year or approximately 4 years of the GDP of the United States. In fact, Social Security, like nationalized healthcare, was presented as insurance, when in fact the “revenue” received from current payees was never invested in a sinking fund, but instead was transferred to the treasury, in exchange for an IOU, to meet ongoing obligations. The federal government makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.

I could expand the list of examples of government mismanagement beyond social security to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Amtrak, and others. In fact, I cannot think of one large government project that has been brought in on scope, on time, on budget and then economically operated. So suppose I am incorrect, the progressives faith in government management is well placed, and Obama is correct: 50M people need to receive healthcare and currently are not receiving it because they are uninsured. Well the bad news is even the Chief Organizer cannot appoint a Medical Czar who can create a sufficient number of qualified, licensed MDs, within the next ten years, to cover the new demand (some subset of ~45M people) that will be placed on the system. Because of caps placed on licensure of doctors in the 1980s and 1990s, during which period the population grew by 45 million, and the fact that over 200,000 licensed physicians start to retire in 2012, sufficient medical doctor capacity will not be available to meet the demand unless the government attracts doctors from abroad. So, according to the law of supply and demand, either the price will go through the roof OR care will have to be rationed. Personally, at the age of 60, I do not like this last option, given that I have acted responsibly to fund my own retirement, medical care, and (hopefully) some small pittance of social security.

Conclusion

I am opposed to the government competing with private enterprise in the area of healthcare. I think Obama has it backwards. Maybe just maybe, healthcare is a mess because the government has imposed itself in the free market. Instead of private insurers’ greedy profit motive, the lack of substantive tort reform, layers of regulation, and establishing artificial prices for services in Medicare and Medicaid have contributed to a system that is broken. Currently more than 1,500 private companies provide health insurance: competition is not an issue. Government intervention will only use the power of the public purse to impose further mandates that will break the system further. In the process, government will tax us further, making us into economic slaves with unaffordable healthcare.

Last, if the government is such a great manager, why are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid facing economic collapse? Using the social progressive's logic, perhaps government could use some competition from private enterprise. Sorry, I forgot, that was a Republican proposal.

An Open Letter to Sen. Jim Webb

I recently received a reply from you to a message that I sent through www.opencongress.org . In essence the message said that you will not respond to communications sent through third parties.

The purpose of this letter is to register my disappointment in your decision to not accept electronic e-mail correspondence through third parties such as www.opencongress.org because sites like this allow citizens to track, read, and evaluate legislation and directly, efficiently, and effectively contact their representatives about matters important to them. It also allows individual citizens to follow the progression of the bill through congress and monitor the way individual representatives voted on that piece of legislation.

Clearly, your interest is to reframe the communication between you and your constituents in a way that makes it more convenient for you rather than the citizen. That is precisely why Washington is a problem and why I will work as hard as I can to see that the voters of Virginia do not return you to your elected office at the first opportunity.

Environmental Taxation without Scientific Representation

“The Obama administration declared Friday that carbon dioxide and five other industrial emissions threaten the planet. The landmark decision lays the groundwork for federal efforts to cap carbon emissions -- at a potential cost of billions of dollars to businesses and government.” (WSJ, J. Weisman and S. Hughes, April, 18, 2009).

According to the article "Environmental Effects of Increase Carbon Dioxide" (Robinson, et al, which has been peer reviewed), the MAGNITUDES of human produced carbon dioxide per year over the past 100 years is so inconsequential relative to exchanges between the oceans, land masses, and the air that it is difficult to determine if any deleterious effects can be attributable to man. In fact, the strongest correlation between global warming and any other physical variable is to solar activity. In fact this article concludes "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like carbon dioxide do not conform to current experimental knowledge." In effect, this carbon dioxide scare is nothing more than an attempt to promote a state sponsored "religion," funded by taxpayer dollars While well intentioned, these folks are on the wrong side of science and will tax us into oblivion to fix a problem that simply does not exist.

Taxing the Rich is Really Taxing All of U.S. (Part II)

In the Wall Street Journal’s “Review and Outlook” section (The 2% Illusion, February 26, 2009), the WSJ editors estimate that, based on 2006 tax data (the most recent available), that raising the tax rate to 100% on all income over $500,000 on the wealthiest 2% of all Americans would generate an estimated $1.3T in “revenue” to the government. Further, the WSJ estimates that if all the income generated by Americans earning over $75,000 were taxed at 100%, it would generate about $4T, which is what the Congress proposes to spend in fiscal 2010. While this is an interesting analysis, it is immaterial because it wrongly assumes that Americans will continue to work simply to pay money to the federal government.

In 1989, then Senator Bob Packwood requested that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate the revenues that would be generated on all Americans earning more than $200,000. The JTC estimated the “revenue” to be $440B over a three year period. This was enough to balance the budget. Sen. Packwood was shocked at this analysis: “Our models assume that people will work forever to pay all of their money to the government. Clearly anyone in their right mind will not.” Sen. Packwood had discovered the principle of the Laffer curve: there is a point beyond which an increase in tax rates causes tax payers to evade taxes, stop working, and stop investing. Reagan understood this principle. By reducing personal, corporate, dividend, and capital gains taxes, he created the longest sustained period of prosperity in the history of the United States. After Reagan reduced taxes in the 1982 – 1986 timeframe, the tax rates have remained relatively unchanged, except for hikes by George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The effect of this long term tax rate reduction, over the period 1982 to 2005, includes:

· Over Reagan’s term, the stock market more than tripled to 3,000. At the height of the George W. Bush term, the market reached 12,500.
· Between 1982 and 2000, stock values soared by 12% per year.
· The net worth of American households increased by $30T.
· The number of Americans owning stock increased from 16% to 50%, investing the average American in the ownership of American business.
· Tax revenues to the Federal government doubled from $1.2T to $2.5T.
· The percentage of tax revenues paid: (1) by the richest 5% has increased from 38% to 60% and (2) by the richest 10% from 48% to 71%.
· The percentage of tax revenues paid by the bottom 50% have dropped from 8% to 3%.
· From 1981 through 2007, the United States was a net importer of $5.2T in capital.

Liberals need to disabuse themselves of the idea that tax rate reductions result in deficits. In fact, tax rate reductions result in increased revenue to the Treasury, capital formation, and increased personal wealth of the average American. Deficits are created by SPENDING MORE THAN THE REVENUE YOU RECEIVE.

From a financial perspective, spending not tax rates is the problem. But this is not the problem the social democrats are trying to solve. They want to buy votes and that takes more money than the American taxpayer can generate.

The "After Math" of The Stimulus Bill

The following is a quote sent to me by my cousin, Mark George. Short, sweet, and to the point.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Dr. Adrian Rodgers

Just like physical laws, certain behaviorial and economic laws may be defied temporarily. At some point, what goes up must go down.

How Much Debt Do We Carry?

Fox News reported today that America's debt is comprised of three basic components: (1) entitlement program future obligations ($55T); (2) debt from government operations ($16T); and (3) debt associated with insurance and other guarantees ($7T). For those who are math challenged, this $78T. How much money is this? Well, it is equal to the World's annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That's right: it would take the world (6-billion people) working for one year to pay off the United States current debt.

I hope Obama's stimulus plan works. But, I doubt it. He simply is doing what he has criticized the average American citizen of doing and what he claims got us into this mess: spending money we do not have, putting it on the credit card, and not saving. The difference between his plan and the average American's plan is that he can print money.

Stimulus Package – An Open Letter to Congress

I am extremely disappointed in the stimulus package that the congress has chosen to enact.

While our country’s future success does require "investment," the investment should be in business not government and in capital not social spending programs. In capitalist (not socialist) America, this typically means investment in a business’s human capital (equipping people to contribute to the success of the business), financial capacity, technology, and infrastructure that will increase FUTURE competitiveness and performance, not simply placate the “crowd.” Because placating the crowd is a politician's raison d'etre, a politician's objectivity in business decision making is highly suspect to begin with. Based upon congress’s historical performance on welfare, social security, energy, health, government’s actual track record isn't great either.

The country would be better off if government did nothing (I think the Congressional Budget Office agrees with me on this one). However, if you really have to do something, cut corporate taxes, provide ALL American workers with a payroll tax holiday, eliminate the mark to market rule, and if you are going to put us into debt, FOCUS spending money on building PROVEN energy supplies including off shore drilling, investment in refineries, building nuclear plants, and completing the Alaska natural gas pipeline.

I think that 300 million American’s are better able to direct the resources of this country than 535 elected representatives, 9 supreme court justices, and 1 president. Case in point: Where is the $78 billion dollars Congress overpaid in the first round of TARP? This is equivalent to $260 per person, or over $1,000 for a family of four. I suspect they would know where they had lost their money.

The American’s Creed

As a child, my wife was a member of the Children of the American Revolution. Each month, when they met, they participated in a Flag ceremony, in which they recited the American’s Creed, written by William Tyler Page (Clerk of the House of Representatives). The Creed was originally adopted by the House of Representatives in 1918, and reads as follows:

“I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union and one and inseparable, established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

“I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its Flag; and to defend it against all enemies.” William Tyler Page

I wonder if the House of Representatives has recited this creed recently? If they have, they either do not understand it or choose not to follow many of these principles.

While America Bleats

As Obama travels the country framing the current recession as the worst economic crisis since the depression – even though to date it is not – so that he can politically position himself as the economic savior of the free world, most Americans are standing by like sheep while his foot soldiers deftly position themselves to attack the country’s “right flank.” Two measures are moving along in congress, with little or no attention. The first would grant through legislation the District of Columbia the status of statehood so that it could seat one representative (The D.C. House Voting Rights Act, HR 238). The second is to move the responsibility for the 2010 census from the Department of Commerce and place the responsibility for it under the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. These moves will allow the socialist Democrats to consolidate political power and over time shift the balance of power more to the left.

George Will points out in his excellent article “With Utah’s help, pretender is closer to statehood,” the problem with D.C. statehood is that Article I, Section 8 identifies D.C. as the “seat of the government of the United States” and is not a state. Article I Section 2 states “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” That is why, in 1978, the District’s advocates sent to the states a constitutional amendment requiring that “for the purposes of representation” the district would be “treated a though it were a state.” Only 16 states ratified it, 22 short of the required number. As Will points out “So the District’s advocates decided that an amendment is unnecessary – a statute will suffice because the Constitution empowers congress “to exercise exclusive legislation” over the District. They argue that this power can be used to, in effect, amend the Constitution by nullifying Article I, Section 2’s requirement.” As Will concludes, “This argument, that Congress’ legislative power trumps the Constitution, means that congress could establish religion, abridge freedom of speech and of the press and abolish the right of peaceful assembly in the District.” As we have seen in the recent past, if this occurs, it is a short step to extending this thinking to granting the District the right to two senators and creating all sorts of rights for other special interests. In the last twelve elections, D.C. has voted 74.8% democratic. This will strengthen the socialist democratic stranglehold on the congress, extending its absolute control over socially progressive legislation and spending.

A second wave of attack on the “right flank” is Obama’s decision to place the 2010 census under Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff. The argument for making this move is that Obama has nominated Senator Judd Gregg, a republican, to lead the Commerce Department, which has been historically responsible for the census and that he cannot be fair. Democrats rightly understand that a fair census is important and a lot is at stake: the census is the basis for re-districting, apportionment of federal funds to the state, and allocation of electoral votes in presidential elections. So they want to protect the census process and outcome to their advantage. How does moving the census to the White House do this? Because the White House is not bound by the same regulations as the Commerce Department, Emanuel need not be as transparent as the Commerce Department in publishing its rules for comment, explaining its process, or defending the results. In fact, conservatives are concerned that even though Article 1, Section 2 and Amendment 14 of the Constitution require that apportionment of representation be based on an actual count of population, a census directed by a democratically controlled White House, which may not be subject to open and full review provided by regulation, will opt to use statistical extrapolation to determine population in areas where it is difficult to “count,” such as traditionally democratic voting areas like the inner cities of America. Republicans should be reasonably concerned, given that the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, recently demonstrated her inability to count when she commented that the economy is so dire that we should expect to lose 500 million jobs unless we pass the $1 trillion bailout bill. I guess she did not look at recent census data: America as of this writing consists of only of 305,788,014 persons.

At some point Americans need to realize that democracy is about equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. Democracy does not guarantee us happiness; it guarantees individuals – not collective groups – the right to pursue happiness. These rights are inalienable, endowed by our Creator, and expressed in the form of laws, to which we collectively agree to abide. When these laws are directly circumvented by those whom we have elected to represent us, then we no longer have an obligation to follow them.

Alice in Wander Land – An Alternative View of Economic Reality

I generally try to back my arguments up with facts; however, I think facts are no longer necessary, as those on the left have proven. Facts simply confuse the issue. So, like a good conspiracy theorist, I will mix some truth with speculation to arrive at a conclusion that is really a premise: Obama is not our economic savior, he is our economic problem. So here goes! I encourage you to have some fun with this: it could be the last fun we have for a while.


If you listen to a business news channel, the talking heads assert that today’s market performance discounts the future. That is, today’s market results are driven by what investors perceive the future to hold. A brief scan of the attached Dow Jones Industrial Average chart shows that the market reached its peak in May 2008, just as the Democrats stumbled (perhaps the word should be “bumbled”) to the finish line endorsing Obama as their candidate for president. Shortly preceding this historic event, Obama had submitted the only piece of legislation that I know of that is in his name: The Global Poverty Act (S.2433). This bill proposes that the United States send 0.7% of GDP to the UN to fight global poverty. This was in addition to his campaign spending proposals amounting to an estimated $1.4 trillion dollars (which ironically is just about the cost of his stimulus “package” including interest).

Anticipating a competitive race, the markets started to “discount” the risk of an Obama future, starting in the June through September timeframe. Alas, when McCain dropped behind in September - October, the markets dropped precipitously and have remained at low levels. Ironically, on the day of his historic inauguration, the markets dropped 332 points, the worst inauguration day sell off in 113 years.


So what does this mean for our economy? According to my alternative view of economic reality, the market will only go down. For an administration that believes that you can only spend money and conserve energy to generate prosperity – economic principles that only Lewis Carroll could appreciate – but has NO experience to prove these theories, I think this will be the most expensive education Obama has every received – including his time at Harvard and Columbia. Unfortunately, you, your children, and their progeny will be paying for it, perhaps forever.

Stimulus or Enema?

The stimulus package is wrong for America. It is an expenditure we cannot afford without putting the long-term fiscal security of this country at risk (I refer to the recent CBO study on the Stimulus Package). On one hand, congress chides Americans for spending beyond their means, mortgaging their future, and not saving enough and then turns around and does precisely that on a national level.

Beyond simply bad fiscal policy, the stimulus spending does not meet the administration’s own test for what constitutes a good stimulus package: it is not timely, it is not targeted, and it is not temporary. It is an attempt by tax-and-spend liberals to push through congress their progressive socialist agenda without debate. Two-thirds of the spending is structural and will remain with us for years and years to come, further increasing the interest we will have to pay on our "revolving" credit card account.

Last, our experience to date on the TARP program suggests that the spending will be ineffective: preliminary indications are for every $100 of spending we receive $66 of value. If you want to stimulate the economy, reduce the marginal individual and corporate tax rates to put money back into the hands of those who create value. My hometown of Virginia Beach does not need another tennis court, which is what we will receive under the Obama plan. It needs the ability to compete in a world that is becoming more competitive and connected.Every financial decision I have ever made that was driven by deadlines created by fear has not turned out so good. I cannot imagine that a $1 trillion dollar, 30 day decision will turn out any better. Perhaps the congress should stick to capitalism and try fact based decision making. That would be refreshing.

Department of the Interior Public Comment Period on Off-Shore Leasing

My understanding is that the Interior Department is soliciting public comment, for a sixty day period, starting January 21, on a five-year plan to lease offshore properties for oil and gas exploration. As is the case with most things in big government, I have searched for a web site that would allow me to provide my input, but to no avail. So instead, I wrote ALL of my elected representatives to provide them with my input so that they make sure my comments were placed in the hands of the proper bureaucrat. I suggest that you provide your comments to your elected representatives www.congress.org. My input to the Department of the Interior follows.

Dear Sir or Madam:

To place my comments in context, energy independence is not only a matter of economic prosperity; it is a matter of national defense. It represents a path forward for putting people back to work, while displacing $700B of payments to countries that are not friendly to us. Gross domestic product and per capita energy consumption are directly correlated: as we consume more energy, GDP goes up. The converse is also true.

This said, regardless of the current price of a barrel of oil, the United States should aggressively pursue development of all of its natural energy resources, starting with those that are proven, abundant, and under its direct control or the control of friendly nations. The following technologies should be deployed / developed in the order shown.

· Energy conservation education should be funded.
· We should be drilling for oil and natural gas wherever it is the least expensive to do so and where a high probability of success exists.
· We should be building more nuclear plants, an energy source that reduces greenhouse gases; is a “high density” energy source (viz., produces more power per acre of land than any other); is abundant in America, Canada, and Australia; is renewable if the country were to reprocess fuel; and could be the basis for conversion of coal to oil or supply of electric energy to automobiles.
· Clean coal should be pursued, because the United States has greater reserves of energy in the form of coal than Saudi Arabia has in oil. As noted above, coal and oil shale can be converted to oil through the use of electricity produced by nuclear power plants.
· The natural gas pipeline from Canada should be completed and the use of natural gas as an alternative to gasoline should be developed. Natural gas is also important to the development and deployment of fuel cell technology, which could over time become a significant source of residential energy supply as well as power transportation solutions.
· Monies should be invested in battery storage technology and fuel cells. These technologies are the key to unlocking the commercial potential of alternative energy sources, because they allow energy to be stored and deployed in mobile form.
· Wind power should be developed and deployed in those situations where it economical to do so. At present, this is a “feel good” technology. The energy density of a “wind farm” is .01 Megawatts per acre of land used compared to 2.8 Megawatts per acre of land used by a commercial electric coal plant (this calculation not only takes into consideration the capacity of the energy source but also its availability). Translation: a 2,259 Mw super-critical fossil plant uses 800 acres of land; an equivalent wind farm uses 200,000 acres of land. Even so, it is a proven technology that has more market share than any other alternative energy source, except conventional hydroelectric power. Wind power is followed closely by biomass.
· Other alternative energy sources should be explored based upon an “investment in success” principle rather than some “religious” fanaticism that we need to save the earth. Photovoltaic technologies should continue to be developed, but one should come to grips with the fact we have been investing in this technology for almost 40 years and to date solar represents 498 Mw of summer capacity in the United States out of 998,837 Mw of total deployed capacity. It is also very expensive in terms of dollars per kilowatts installed. A more promising source, in my view, is algae based oil production, which has demonstrated the ability to produce 18,000 to 22,000 gallons of fuel oil per year per acre of non-arable land, compared to the government’s “ethanol” mandate that produces 12 gallons of gasoline per arable acre of land.

Last, I do believe that global warming is occurring; however, I do not believe that man’s presence is contributing in any significant sense to that warming. I believe – based on scientific evidence – that the principal driver behind the warming is solar activity and that this is a naturally occurring, cyclical phenomenon. Spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to counter it will be throwing money down a rat hole. In fact, the wrongheaded belief that man’s carbon based activities are the culprit will exacerbate the problem by moving us toward investing in “green technologies” that are high cost, low energy density. The developmental costs will be borne disproportionately among the “successful” (otherwise known by “the rich” in progressive / socialist circles) so that the “poor” can have access to these energy sources. The end result of this will be another failed government program that has negative economic consequences, especially for the poor, which in turn affects our ability to address more pressing matters.

Geithner Confirmation

The following is an open letter to my elected senators, from Virginia, Messrs. Webb and Warner:

“I respectfully request that you vote NOT to confirm Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury. Character counts.

“I am sure that at least one qualified democrat, out of a population of 300 million citizens, can be found to fill this position other than Geithner. If Obama can make the argument that the means does not justify the ends when it comes to interrogating terrorists using water boarding, then confirming a person who has an absolute disregard for the tax code to head the agency that makes those laws does not "hold water" either.

“I also reject the argument that "time is of the essence." Since when has time been of the essence to congress? If congress had addressed the housing issue, social security, Medicare, and energy issues over the last thirty years, we would not be facing this crisis.”

I encourage you to write your elected representatives and let them know what you think.

Where is Obama’s Aunt?

In late November, 2008, I contacted by elected representatives concerning the illegal immigration status of President Obama’s Aunt Zeituni Onyango. The content of my communication was:

“In a local newspaper article (The Virginian Pilot), it was reported that president-elect Barack Obama's aunt (Aunt Zeituni Onyango) has been in this country for 4 years illegally. She violated a deportation order and has taken up residence in subsidized housing in Boston. Because this is a country that is based on the rule of law, I respectfully request that you notify the appropriate authorities of her status, and have her deported immediately. I look forward to your positive response to my request. I will expect a follow-up from you within 30 days. If I do not hear from you, I will report this to my local newspaper as well as the 200 people I reach through my blog. I will have them direct their concerns to your office.

“I realize that, as democrats, this places you in a tough spot, since Aunt Zeituni is a close relative of the president-elect. However, a price exists for doing the right thing.”

Well … surprise, surprise … my elected senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner, did not respond, so I am moving to plan “B.” If you are a Virginian and wish to contact your senators, you may reach them electronically through www.firstgov.org. You may have to fax Mr. Warner. He is our former governor and was elected, in part, because of his experience as a high-tech, IT executive. Unfortunately, he does not have an e-mail address, as of this writing. You will have to contact him by fax or snail mail. Perhaps that is why he has not responded. Apparently he is too busy to communicate with his constituents, and instead is voting for a stimulus package to build infrastructure for everyone else but those who are in charge of spending the peoples’ money.

If you are not from Virginia, I urge you to contact your representatives directly and ask them to simply enforce the law. Unfortunately in America today, we do not recognize laws anymore unless they seem to be ones that fit our political agenda.