Climategate 2.0

A new batch of 5,000 emails between pro-global warming scientists were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry; (2) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

The purported negative effects of industrialization and population growth on the environment (viz., Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)) are central to the Administration’s adoption of progressive regulation that negatively impacts individual liberty and free-market economic activities.  These regulatory initiatives include removal of large tracts of land and natural resources from development, promotion of feel-good energy technologies, and increasing reliance on international bodies to “save us from ourselves.” 

Maybe it is time for us to save ourselves from politically motivated scientists.

Putting a “Happy Face” on Progessivism

Jefferson said “The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.” Well, the government has been working diligently over the past several years to keep up its end of the bargain by taking away "life" (legislated healthcare rationing) and "liberty" (promotion of Comprehensive Planning on the state and local level that separates property ownership rights from development rights).  If that were not enough, the government now seeks to eliminate all vestiges of our God-given rights, by taking away our individual "happiness" and replacing it with that of the collective. 

Case in point: Maryland’s state website has established a "Genuine Progress Indicator” that advocates for the adoption of the so-called “Happy Planet Index," developed by the New Economy Foundation (NEF) with support from Friends of the Earth.  To calculate the HPI, authors use the following equation: Life Satisfaction times Life Expectancy divided by the community's Ecological Footprint, as measured by environmental regulation. (see http://bit.ly/q8kbTx).  It is left to the reader to plumb the philosophical depths (the “dark” depths, I may add) of this thinking by visiting the link and exploring Maryland’s “happiness metrics,”  which not only describe the Happy Planet Index, but promote the concepts of “Gross National Happiness” and “Subjective Measures of Human Wellness.”  

The idea that government can define “happiness” much less use government resources to promote its secular, communal definition on a website should scare the hell out of any reasonably informed, freedom-loving American citizen.    In effect, the state of Maryland is attempting to put the final post-modernist nail in the Constitution’s coffin by hypothecating that ALL rights come from the state (man) and not man’s Creator: that is, rights are not individual, but collective. 

So, keep this in mind.  Using the HPI definition and simple math, if you have low life satisfaction and life-expectancy because the government makes you worker harder and longer in a job you do not like because it’s the only job you can find, you can help the planet as a whole by reducing your ecological footprint.

Searching for New Sources of Energy and Looking in all the Wrong Places

Recently, Frank Luntz, a pollster, corrected a Fox News pundit, who stated that Americans were in favor of drilling for more oil. Luntz stated that Americans did not want to drill for more oil, they “wanted to explore for new energy sources.” Personally, I believe this is a distinction without a difference; however, it appears that the liberals and environmentalists have convinced Americans that drilling equals environmental apocalypse. So, following the lead of Albert Einstein, I decided to perform some “thought” experiments to see what sources I could find and thereby meet the needs of my fellow citizens, who currently are sitting on 86 billion barrels of oil, with 85% of it off limits to drilling (USA Today, June 13, 2008, pg 2A).

Serendipitously, I came across a 2006 USA Today article “Feds: Obesity Raising Airline Fuel Costs,” in which USA Today suggests, based on a 2000 Center for Disease Control study, that the 10 additional pounds gained by the average American in the 1990s, costs the American airlines an additional 350 million gallons of fuel per year and produces 3.8 million additional tons of carbon dioxide. The article states that this represented a fuel price increase of $275 million. I was “flabbergasted,” pardon the pun, which resulted in an epiphany. What if I could turn “flab” into “gas?”

First, I needed to confirm some facts. I had to determine the scope of the opportunity. First, I checked the projected benefits of simply reducing the cost of airline fuel. I found it circumspect that 350 million gallons of fuel could cost only $275 million dollars (78.9 cents per gallon). Lo and behold, to my surprise, the International Air Transport Association (www.iata.org) tracks the weekly price of aviation fuel. In 2000, a gallon of gas traded at 87 cents per gallon, which compares favorably to that reported). Even more surprising, the cost of a gallon of aviation fuel on June 13, 2008 was listed as $4.03 per gallon. Then I knew I was really onto something. The potential savings from solving this problem alone was worth almost 5 times the originally reported cost savings – $1.27 billion.

But were there other benefits? Several came to mind: reduction in food cost, better health were obvious… how about generating energy from the fat stored in the bodies of all these overweight individuals.

Additional research was required to estimate the additional benefits that could accrue to my fellow Americans – those sitting on 86 billion barrels of oil, 85% of which is off limits to drilling (are you starting to see a theme here). Here is what I learned:

- 65% of adult Americans are overweight or obese (source: CDC). This is defined in terms of body mass index (BMI), but it is generally accepted that it would include individuals who are at least 20% above their ideal body weight. Using the mid-point weight, by BMI, an average weight of 147 pounds for a 5 foot, 9-inch height individual was calculated. Using the 20% factor, “overweight or obese” was determined to be 30 pounds of fat.

- 75.4% (226.3 million) of all Americans (299.4 million) in 2006 were older than 18 (source: Census Bureau).

- Various newspaper reports state that the average American (those sitting on 86 billion barrels of oil, 85% of which is off limits to drilling) consumes 4,000 calories per day. According to the calculator on www.health.com, a 147-pound person doing office work and light reading 16 hours per day and sleeping 8 hours per day, requires 2,399 calories per day. Other sources indicate a minimum need of 2000 calories per day. These statistics are comparable to those reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FOA) of the United Nations which states that the average American consumes 3,790 calories per day compared to some third world countries that consume 2,020 calories per day. Conservatively, Americans consume at least 1,500 calories each day more than they need.

- According to www.health.com, 1 hour of vigorous walking exercise consumes about 368 calories. For purposes of this analysis, I will assume it is all fat; clearly that is not the case, but this is a blog not a scientific journal.

- There are 9 calories per gram of fat (source: www.wikipedia.com ). There are approximately 500 grams in one pound (source: basic high school education, circa 1967).

- According to a University of Washington Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) study (March 2008), Adam Drewnoski, checked the prices of 372 foods sold at local supermarkets in the Seattle, WA, area, comparing the prices with calorie density. High calorie density foods include things like peanut butter and granola; low-density foods included things like fruits and vegetables. “Based on a standard 2000 calorie diet, the researchers found a diet consisting of calorie dense foods costs $3.52 per day, but a diet consisting primarily of low-calorie foods, costs $36.32 a day. The average American eats a variety of foods, throughout the day, spending $7 per day.” Further, the study reports that during a the two year study period, the price of high –calorie foods decreased by 1.8% and the price of low-calorie foods increased 19.5 percent. While the $7 per day seems high, it does compare favorably to the number reported in Agriculture Fact Book, 2000 – 2001, food expenditures in the United States were $2,964 per capita or $8.12 per day, which represents a higher caloric intake than 2000 calories per day. Based on this data, I non-scientifically extrapolated the data to state that the cost of 200 calories of food is $0.43 (200 x $8.12 per day / 3,790 calories per day).

So, what can you deduce from all this? Assuming the 147 million average Americans, who are either overweight or obese, (and sitting on oil, etc) were to walk one hour per day five days per week and reduce their food consumption from almost 4,000 calories per day to 2,500 per day, they would:

- Lose 4.4 billion pounds of fat over a period of 1.3 years, resulting in better health and a feeling of self worth due to their accomplishment.

- Save the American airline industry ~ 800 million gallons of fuel per year (350 million gallons per 10 lbs multiplied by 30 pounds per person and divided by 1.3 years) costing $3.2 billon dollars (800 million gallons multiplied by $4.00 per gallon), but probably an overstatement, because the cost of fuel would most likely come down due to supply / demand … so discount this by a third, and reduce the savings by $1 billion a year to $2.2 billion). This is the equivalent of one-day’s energy consumption for the whole United States (20 million barrels per day at $137 per barrel, as of this writing).

- Reduce individual adult food cost by at least 32%, assuming a 2,500-calorie diet (i.e., (3,790 calories – 2,500 calories)/(3,790 calories)) or a savings of $948 per year per adult. Assuming a family of four, comprised of two adults and two minors, this represents a family savings of almost $1,900 per year or 4.5% of the average American family income (assumed to be $42,000). Not factored into the calculation is the costs required to produce the food which can be 12 to 100 times as energy intensive as the calories consumed (i.e., it requires 12 calories of energy to produce 1 calories of corn; 96 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of beef).

- Reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 9 million tons per year. The US electric utility industry releases 2.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year (source: Washington Post). Airline savings would equate to a little more than 1 day of carbon dioxide savings.

- Even though it is beyond the scope of this blog post and will be the subject of another blog, if the walking energy expended by these 147 million Americans was harnessed on treadmills and converted to useful work (assuming a conversion ratio of 0.7), then we could generate approximately 85 watts per person or approximately 12,500 Megawatts (Mws) in total capacity. Assuming each person walks1 hour per day, five days per week, for 1.3 years, this is equivalent to approximately 50,000 Mw-hr in generation. This is approximately 4 days of generation from a 600 Mw coal fired fossil unit.

In spite of these benefits, I suspect that the average American (who is currently sitting on 86 billion barrels of oil, with 85% of it off limits to drilling) will not choose to capture them. Instead, they will use the additional calories to generate hot air, the energy content of which cannot be captured for useful purposes, and only will contribute to global warming and the eventual energy death of the world. That assumes that the flawed ideas and inaction generated by their talking doesn’t destroy it first.

A Lesson from the Other Side of the Rabbit Hole

I love connecting the storyline of two separate newspaper articles, which the editors see as disparate, but are actually interrelated.  On July 19, 2011, the Wall Street Journal published two articles: “Get ready for 70% marginal tax rate" by Michael J. Boskin and "Notable and Quotable" a quote of a Heather McDonald statement on the University of California's diversity obsession. When read as one, the two articles lay bare an assumption that is critical to the liberal progressive view of government:  government never has a spending problem – it is always a revenue problem.  Really?  Only if you are Alice in “Wanderland.”

When progressives look at government – as Alice might have – “through the looking glass,” they see a well-oiled, efficient, and effective machine, which can only be harmed if taxes are not raised.  When conservatives look at government through a microscope, they see an out-of-control bureaucracy whose tax-and-spend profligacy robs them of their individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – the basis of which is economic freedom. 

In “Get ready for a 70% marginal tax rate," by Michael J. Boskin, the author addresses the perilous nature of our economic future under a tax-and-spend scenario.  Boskin states “the current top federal rate of 35% is scheduled to rise to 39.6% in 2013 (plus one-to-two points from the phase-out of itemized deductions for singles making above $200,000 and couples earning above $250,000). The payroll tax is 12.4% for Social Security (capped at $106,000), and 2.9% for Medicare (no income cap). While the payroll tax is theoretically split between employers and employees, the employers’ share is ultimately shifted to workers in the form of lower wages.” Using California as an example, state income tax is about 10.5%. Thus the marginal tax rate paid on wages is approximately 44.1%. As Boskin points out, this is a net figure because state income taxes are deducted from federal income. Under this scenario, for a California citizen, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2013 will result in the addition of a 0.9% increase in payroll taxes to fund the Affordable Health Care Protection Act. Obama's proposal to eventually uncap Social Security taxes will lead to a combined marginal tax rate in California of 58.4%.

But things get worse. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that an additional $841 billion deficit in 2016. Assuming a goal of a balanced budget through tax increases, all income tax rates will have to be increased by 31.7%, raising the combined marginal tax rate for a California citizen to 68.8%. Mr. Boskin then uses this argument to make the point that a California teacher, earning $60,000 a year, would keep approximately 30% of her wages or about $18,000. He states, “At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.”

In the second article, Heather McDonald paints a clear picture of California’s true situation as it stares at the brink of economic disaster.  She states that “California's budget crisis has reduced the University of California to near-penury, claim its spokesmen.” “Our campuses and UC Office of The President already have cut to the bone," the university system's vice president for budget and capital resources warned earlier this month. According to Ms. McDonald, they have not cut their staff to the bone. “The University of California at San Diego is creating a new, full-time Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion." This position will augment UC San Diego's already massive diversity apparatus which includes the following:

·         The Chancellor's Diversity Office

·         An Associate Vice Chancellor For Faculty Equity

·         The Assistant Vice Chancellor For Diversity

·         Faculty Equity Advisors

·         Graduate Diversity Coordinators

 

·         Staff Diversity Liaison

·         Undergraduate Student Diversity Liaison

·         Graduate Student Diversity Liaison

·         A Chief Diversity Officer

·         The Director Of Development For Diversity Initiatives

·         The Office Of Academic Diversity And Equal Opportunity

 

·         The Committee On Gender Identity And Sexual Orientation Issues

·         The Committee On The Status Of Women

·         The Campus Council On Climate, Culture, and Inclusion

·         The Diversity Council

·         Directors of the Cross-Cultural Center

 

·         The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Resource Center and

·         The Women’s Center.

I wonder if the California teacher – whose take home pay is about 30% of what she earns – believes that the University of California may have a little further to go before they “reach the bone.”   That is unless she works for UC, in which case, the progressives’ view of the Utopia has come almost full circle: the teacher will be working almost full time to pay the taxes that pay her own salary.  

Alice would be proud.

Economics In One Page

In the article “Rebuild wages to restore economy," by Holly Sklar, (Virginian Pilot July 23, 2011), the author states "it's time to stop stuffing the penthouse of the economy with gold and rebuild the crumbling foundation." She argues that minimum wage should be raised to $10.00 per hour because $7.25 per hour ($15,080 per year) does not pay “… for rent, groceries, transportation, medicine and everything else.” She asserts that this will not harm the economy. She quotes John Shepley of the Business for A Fair Minimum Wage: “ … the notion that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs is just bunk. People at the lower end of earnings tend to spend 100% of their after-tax income. They put it right back into local businesses buying food, clothing, car repairs and other necessities. When the minimum wage is too low it not only impoverishes productive workers, it weakens the key consumer demand at the heart of our local economy."  While this article quotes many "facts," these facts do not tell the truth.

First, it is neither an employer’s fiduciary responsibility nor the government’s Constitutional responsibility to “rebuild wages.” Wages are set by supply and demand.  In fact, if an employer is able to produce a high-quality, high-demand product at a market-based price and produce that product with absolutely no employees, it will do so. Businesses are concerned with productivity not employment.  To the extent that employees can provide a function that can be done more economically than by a machine, they will be employed. This is demonstrated by the history of manufacturing in the United States since 1940.

Second, the author correctly asserts artificially raising wages does keep employees employed and provides them with more money to spend in the economy – at least for a time. However because they are adding no additional value to the product or service they are providing, within a short period of time the increase in wage is subsumed into the ongoing cost of business, increasing the price of the product to the consumer. The employee may be better off, the consumer is not.  The consumer’s increased price for a hamburger represents dollars that are no longer available to be spent on other innovative, productivity enhancing products or services like personal education. In fact, minimum wage only increases the inefficiency of the marketplace, making overall business less competitive. This is the lesson we have learned and will continue to learn from India and China.

Last, Ms. Sklar points out that minimum-wage workers have only $15,080 to pay for the basic necessities of life, but she fails to mention that these workers qualify for a plethora of government programs that subsidize their basic income, including food stamps, housing allowances, back to work programs, et cetera.  These benefits are part of government “entitlements” that in total represent about 70% of our annual federal budget, which the guys in the “Penthouse” make possible through the jobs they do provide.

Fundamentally, conservatives and progressives have two diametrically opposed views of the way the world works. A conservative believes that one creates wealth through one’s labor, first saving for future investment, and then taking a risk to start a business that meets a real demand. Progressives believe that wealth is created by the government through printing paper money, distributing it to those who are dependent upon the government, who save none of it, and who seek some fictitious future that never materializes. If a conservative fails, the business’s capital – which was created by the owner – is redeployed to alternative economic uses.  If a progressive fails, the government simply prints more money.

So, if one is concerned about low-wage workers well-being, perhaps he or she should donate through their church or a local charity.   Raising minimum wage is an ineffective, inefficient way to accomplish this objective, as proven by the fact that almost half of all citizens receive some form of government subsidy.  Instead, we have created is a large, centralized progressive government that threatens to destroy liberty and freedom for everyone.

CAFE Anyone?

More and more I'm beginning to understand how Alice felt when she fell down the rabbit hole into Wonderland. We are now living in a world in which political science trumps engineering science. Don’t even think about applying engineering economics principles. In this brave new world, the consequences of big business being in bed with big government are becoming readily apparent. Nothing illustrates this better than the Obama administration decree – using linear thinking in a non-linear world – that car manufacturers achieve a 56.5 mile per gallon average efficiency standard by the year 2015. The current standard is 35.5 mpg.

In the Wall Street Journal article "Over Caffeinated CAFÉ" by Holman Jenkins (July 6, 2011), Mr. Jenkins correctly points out "engineering is absent." No consideration is given to the state of the technology or our ability to deliver this mandated efficiency goal. Sean McAlinden of the Center for Automotive Research reports that to meet the stated goal the demand for materials needed to produce ultra high-mileage cars will exceed the supply by several times over. This is in a world where the latest Honda Civic is 42% heavier than its 1990 model and has nearly twice the horse power. The consequences of this mandate will be the production of cars Americans do not want at a price they cannot afford. What is the auto industry’s response to this? They have asked that the timeframe for achieving this goal be extended so that they have time to lobby for its repeal under a new administration. They do not want to directly confront Obama on this issue because they do not want to bite the hand that bailed them out.

So just like the electric utility industry, where over the past 10 years the number of electronic devices owned by each American has gone up by a factor of four to five, but the administration wants to replace high-energy density conventional electricity production with low-energy density solar and windmill production, at three to four times the cost of these conventional sources, the Obama administration wishes to raise fuel efficiency goals without any consideration of technical or economic feasibility.

Just like Alice in Wonderland – where up is down and down is up – the Obama administration will not allow engineering reality to stand in the way of political goals. The overarching natural principle of government is at work – the law of unintended consequences. Taking every gasoline powered vehicle off the road and replacing them with electric vehicles will substitute the carbon dioxide they otherwise would have produced with carbon dioxide that is generated by fossil fuel coal plants to produce the electricity they will require. In the process, as Obama has correctly stated, “prices … will skyrocket.” Does this sound like a good use of precious investment capital to you?

Economic Discovery "Turns To"

In “Economic Recovery Turns 2: You Feel Better Yet,” (Paul Wiseman, VA Pilot 7/5/2011), the author quotes many facts to make the same old progressive talking point: because corporate profits are up 59% (since 2009) and CEO pay is up 25% (since 2009), “evil” [my word] corporations, the CEOs who run them, and stockholders are doing well, but the average employee, whose wages are down 1.6% (since 2010) is not. Translation: “evil” corporations are not meeting their social obligation to hire people or pay them a fair wage.


First, profits are not necessarily a bell-wether of the state of the economy. Most companies on the stock exchange are large corporations (20% of all companies in the US) and are generally multi-national. A large portion of their operations are outside the United States. A better measure of corporate health is gross revenues, generated by business units within the United States.

Second, most new job creation is from small and mid-sized businesses (80% of all companies in the United States). The revenue (and profits) within this segment have been and are currently stagnant.

Third, and most important – listen carefully – the purpose of a company is not to create jobs and hire people (wages). Its purpose is to produce a product or service as efficiently as possible (productivity), thereby generating profit. So, if my small business can produce a high-quality, low-cost, high-demand product or service, without one employee, that is what it will do. Wages are set by local / global market forces. If government wants companies to employ more people, it should encourage a business environment in which companies thrive and employing more workers is economically attractive: an environment of limited but appropriate regulations, low taxes, and a fair legal system.

Government never has nor ever will create wealth: productive people -- free of government regulation and taxation -- do that.

Is the Left Running Out of Gas?

In the opinion piece “Running Out of Oil?” (Virginian Pilot, June 11, 2011), the author uses literary repetition of one fact to make the point that a recent 700-million barrel oil field discovery in the Gulf is sufficient to meet only 28 days of United States oil consumption.  While this is great theatre, it is a meaningless argument.

First, one oil well never has and never will provide sufficient oil supply to meet United States oil demand for an extended period of time.  That’s why the oil industry is called the oil industry: it’s in the business of drilling more than one oil well at a time.  

Second, the author provides no alternative to oil drilling, but leaves that to the reader’s imagination: sort of like “hope and change.”  According to the Energy Information Administration, about two-thirds of oil consumption in the United States is used for transportation, where little substitution is possible from other energy sources.  In other words, the planes, trains, trucks, and automobiles that drive our economy use oil-based fuel sources, and for the foreseeable future cannot be powered—neither technologically or economically –  by relatively-low energy density, unproved, alternative energy sources. 

Third, it is true that Americans, who represent about 5% of the world’s population, consume approximately 25% of the world’s oil.  What is left unstated is that America produces 25% of the world’s gross domestic product.  In other words, economic prosperity is directly correlated to energy consumption per capita.   I guess that might be one of many reasons that Obama’s economic recovery plan is not working:  anti-growth energy policy necessarily limits economic growth.

Last, today (June 23, 2011), the administration announced that it will release 30-million barrels from the 727-million barrel strategic reserve (only about 28 days of national supply, as the Virginian Pilot repeatedly points out), and oil prices dropped 4% immediately. So much for that liberal argument that drilling for oil, even in small amounts, will not affect global price.  But then again, progressives never have been big on supporting their "beliefs" with historical fact.

You Choose 2012: Liberty or Regulation

In June 2010 while the American people were focused on the Gulf oil spill, Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13544. This EO indirectly links America’s health policy to the UN’s “voluntary” standard “Codex Alimentarius” (CA) – the UN’s worldwide plan for food standards – through the World Trade Organization. WTO has adopted CA as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection. As a participant in WTO, the United States must comply with “findings” by WTO on international trade policy disputes.

Specifically, Executive Order 13544, Section 6, paragraphs (f) and (g) state that the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council – yet another bureaucratic committee -- shall submit a report to the President annually that “contains specific plans to ensure that all Federal health-care programs are fully coordinated with science-based prevention recommendations by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and contains specific plans to ensure that all prevention programs outside the Department of Health and Human Services are based on the science-based guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”[Emphasis mine]

In other words, by embracing the standard that all programs outside of DHS are “science-based,” Americans must subordinate their freedom to choose what is right for them to the fiats of an international body. How so? All WTO has to do is claim that alternative medicines, vitamins, and health supplements are “non-scientific” or impose mandatory labeling / testing requirements that make them uneconomic, and they will be effectively banned, as a condition of trade.

Evidence exists to support that this scenario. In 1996, the German delegation to the Codex Alimentarius Commission put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs. The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation. At the 28th Session of the Commission, held in July 2005, the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements" were adopted during the meeting as new global safety guidelines. Many member countries can choose to regulate dietary supplements as therapeutic goods or pharmaceuticals or by some other category. Supplements are not explicitly banned, but the language subjects them to labeling and packaging requirements, sets criteria for the setting of maximum and minimum dosage levels, and requires that safety and efficacy are considered when determining ingredient sources.

Actions like the one described above will result in alternative / homeopathic medicine, including supplements, being regulated out of existence. This is a direct assault on individual liberty: if enacted it will ultimately limit an individual’s medicinal choices to only those regulated by the federal government and "big "pharma. A point may come in every American citizen's life when pharmaceutical drugs may not be affordable, and he or she must rely more heavily on lower cost, homeopathic remedies. That is an individual’s choice, not the government's.

The President’s action violates every American’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is inconsistent with American values and adds more complexity to an already overly complex regulatory schema.

Commons Cent$: You Should Get More Than What You Pay For

Today was a bizarre day: first, I was approached by a woman at Starbuck’s who thought I was a liberal and then was sucked into a threaded discussion by what appeared to be a group of conservatives discussing whether or not the Ryan plan would save the Ponzi scheme we know as Medicare. I easily convinced the Starbuck’s patron she had seriously misjudged me. I am not so sure that I had any luck convincing anyone that whatever the Ryan plan “saves” is immaterial: Medicare in its current form is a Ponzi scheme much grander than anything Maddoff concocted and, not withstanding its arguable unconstitutionality, it is unsustainable on a purely economic basis.

To understand why Medicare and “entitlements,” in general, are economically unsustainable, one need only apply common sense and understand the simple psychological principle that all behavior is motivated, you only need to understand the motivation.

If the Government offers to an electorate a good or service, which they otherwise individually cannot afford, they demand it. “Hey, Kris is paying for it and, besides, I NEED it.”

Once the electorate becomes accustomed to receiving the good or service and figures out all they have to do is vote for it and not work to pay for it, they demand even more. “What’s going to happen to me, if I lose my coverage? I can’t afford it, but I can vote for Harry Reid, who will pass a law that Kris must pay for it, or he will go to prison. And besides, he can afford it.”

When the government cannot afford to cover the benefit anymore because too few people are working to support the “benefits” being drawn from the system (“tax revenues are down”), the Government passes euphemistically titled laws (“the Affordable Healthcare Protection Act”) to reduce the “price” (not the cost) of the good or service below what it actually costs to produce it ("make healthcare affordable for everyone"). This sends a false signal to the market that more supply exists than demand, so demand goes up further.

The people supplying the good or service (doctors in this case) become overwhelmed with work, are undercompensated for their work (hey, the government has set an “affordable’ price for the consumer), and are unable to invest in their practices because they are not covering their cost. Quality of care goes down, the practice suffers from lack of ongoing investment, and ultimately the doctor closes his practice or simply walks away.

Overwhelmed, the whole healthcare system collapses on itself and instead of price controlling the market, some so-called “overworked, underpaid” un-elected bureaucrat, who only works from 9 – 5, M-F rations healthcare. Waiting lines go up, and mortality rates for previously easily treatable, common diseases go up (but theoretically there is equality of outcome: “rich people” paying of the good or service die at the same average age as “poor people”).

The social progressives justify this healthcare scenario and other social programs as a “right” based on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution which 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 [emphasis mine] 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 & Spottswoode (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.

What is it about logic and common sense that liberals do not get? If they wish to better mankind, then they should eliminate an inefficient, ineffective government from being the middleman and use the wealth THEY create to: (1) directly meet the needs they see; (2) build and invest in non-profits; or (3) ASK their family, friends, or church for a handout. If asking is so painful, perhaps they would opt to get a job.

Progressives have perverted the old sayings that served this country well: instead of “charity starts at HOME,” they believe “charity starts at HUD.”

If something does not change, we all will need to learn the new progressive tagline: “you SHOULD GET MORE than what you pay for.”

USA Overboard: Port Side

In the Virginian Pilot editorial “Going Overboard in Quest for Oil” (Pilot, May 10, 2011), the Pilot implies that Rep. Rigell and Rep. Wittman abandoned reason and, like lemmings, voted en masse with the their “partisan bosses … to force Virginia to exchange its interests for what amounts to promises that have proven empty time and time again.” In its tirade, the Pilot cites some facts. But facts are not necessarily the same as truth, although that is a hard concept for progressives – even when they actually use facts – to accept.

Assume the Pilot was right on two points: “… the United States does not have enough oil to affect global markets” and “ … despite the fact that if there is oil off Sandbridge, it will be years before it hits the pump.” Add to these “facts” that: (1) America has more energy reserves from ALL sources than any other country in the world and (2) technologically and economically it is feasible to extract oil based products from shale, coal, and sources of oil supply which 40 years ago were non-economic. The problem statement changes: it is not that we do not have sufficient fungible sources of energy to “bend” the cost curve; it is that we conflate “engineering economics” with “political science.” Put bluntly, if all options were on the table and the free market were allowed to work, oil off the coast of Virginia will not be extracted if is not technologically and economically viable to do so. However, by irrationally raising public fear, the progressive left hopes to raise regulatory transaction cost and eliminate energy options they don’t like. That is the same path we ventured down 40 “years ago” with nuclear energy, which is now considered “green.” Today, if we had safe, abundant nuclear energy like France, which is 80% nuclear, we would be converting coal to oil and driving electric vehicles.

In fact, I believe Rep. Rigell and Rep. Wittman, among others, recognize that the solution to our energy problems is to start now if we want to be energy independent in 40 years, embrace all technologically viable energy sources, and let them compete on their intrinsic economics not on fear, hybperbole, villiany, and politics.

The 2011-2012 Virginia Beach Budget Battle: I See Trouble on the Way

The Virginian Pilot’s article “Good News, Bad News” (Pilot, May 4, 2011) reports that that Virginia Beach real estate and personal property taxes will remain unchanged, but homeowners will start paying a trash bill and higher storm water fees. In the City Manager's inimitable words “If we kick the can down the road again, we’ll pay more later …” I guess he hasn’t noticed, but it is later, we are paying more, and we do not have any more money to pay (See blog $2B or not $2B: That is the Question).


The article implies that fee increases and raising the debt limit are needed to save Virginia Beach’s aging infrastructure. That is not what the proposed budget suggests. The year-to-year increase in proposed expenditures is approximately $35M. Buried in the $1.7B City Budget Proposal Executive Summary, the table entitled “City and School Expenditures by Expenditure Account” reveals that of the $35M increase, $20M is related to salary, $15M is related to fringe benefits, and $6M is related to increases in pay-as-you go capital improvement projects, which is offset by $6M in other operating categories. Similarly, the $176M increase in the debt limit is not intended to improve basic infrastructure such as water and sewer, but to fund private / public sector projects that favor big business, such as the convention center hotel and redevelopment of the dome site.

Virginia Beach citizens are late to the game. The budget approval process is moving toward a May 10, 2011 vote, and the only public input was solicited at a public meeting on April 21, Maundy Thursday. In spite of a clear message – that now is not the time to raise taxes , raise the debt, and increase spending – which was sent to City Council by Republican Party conservatives, the Virginia Taxpayer Alliance, Campaign for Liberty, and the Hampton Roads Tea Party, it appears that City Council intends to do so.

Immediately following the public meeting, the Hampton Roads Tea Party (HRTP) provided City Council with a letter identifying areas in which it proposed $43M in spending cuts. While some of the recommended cuts may not be able to be made this year because of ongoing contractual obligations, HRTP has stated that it will be watching closely to ensure that:

1. Council makes sure that the City does not obligate itself to similar expenditures in the future and takes the necessary steps to not perform or privatize services that are non-core, discretionary / core, discretionary and are more appropriately performed by private enterprise;

2. Council makes clearly visible the funding of Comprehensive Plan “sustainability” initiatives that are tied to unelected, third-party mandates and drive up the cost of business (i.e., “green” building requirements that have increased the cost of proposed new schools and facilities and have questionable ROI); and

3. Council establishes performance benchmarks that ties City performance to costs and performance standards in the private sector and not to other government entities and cities that are clearly inappropriate (i.e., benchmarking Virginia Beach to Fairfax County).

Citizens are also very concerned about the City raising the per capita debt limit to raise hundreds of millions of dollars over the next several years to fund private / public partnerships. Government is not the public’s investment banker. Government’s purpose is not to pick winners and losers in the private sector in order to grow government revenue. Government should be in the business of constitutionally-limited governance that provides a level playing field for all. The City should limit its focus to public safety, education, and infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, public buildings, etc.)

It appears that it is not going to be easy to win back fiscal control over our City government. But it is a battle many of us are willing to fight. Maybe Council is better served by listening to the inimitable words of Creedence Clearwater Revival, “I see the bad moon arising … I see trouble on the way … I see bad times today.”

Gas or Hot Air – The Sequel

According to Thomas Rosch in the Wall Street Journal (“Obama’s Political Price Gouging,” Opinion Section, May 2, 2011), the President and his Attorney General are forming a new “working group” to investigate “price gouging” at the gas pump (“White House’s Task Force to Probe Oil, Gas Markets,” U.S. News, April 22). This working group will come under the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which was constituted to prevent fraud in the financial and lending markets. This group will duplicate the functions of existing agencies – the Federal Trade Commission – which is already empowered to investigate and prevent “price gouging.”

Besides spending money on two different organizations to work at cross purposes on the same “problem,” this action demonstrates just how clueless the President really is: simple math demonstrates that it is the government itself that is “price gouging” the American public.

The following is based upon a blog I wrote May 18, 2008, when the Democrat-controlled Congress saw gas prices rising and the political left attacked the oil companies. Does it sound familiar?

“Congress is holding congressional hearings this week. They are beating up the oil executives in hopes that they will reduce their salaries so that the common man can make it to work tomorrow. At $4.00 per gallon for gas, reducing gas prices through means other than the law of supply and demand has become a national pastime. What have we learned from this circus?

“Congress has learned that the cost of a barrel of crude represents about 75% of the cost of a gallon of gas. Corporate profit represents 4% of the cost of a gallon. What about the other 21%?

“Well, here are some facts from the Energy Information Administration. In 2005, when gas was $2.27 per gallon, component costs were: (1) 10% distribution and marketing; (2) 18% refining cost and profit; (3) 19% Federal and State taxes; (4) 53% crude oil price. So, subtracting out the present day cost of the oil (75%) and profit (4%) and assuming the other costs remain proportionate to those in 2005, we can reliably state the following:

1. 75.0% goes to the crude oil provider (principally OPEC, Venezuela, Canada, Mexico).

2. 9.3% goes to Federal and State government.

3. 6.8% goes to refining;

4. 4.9% goes to distribution and marketing; and

5. 4.0% of a gallon of gas goes to oil company profits.”

Miracle of miracles! The oil companies are making less than 50% of that collected by the state and federal government AND the state and federal governments take no business risk. In fact, the government’s “profit” increases directly as the price of a gallon of gas rises, with no downside risk. Maybe we should ask our representatives, who seem not to understand economics OR basic math, to take a pay cut. Then again, maybe we can harness the energy in the hot air. We know they will never vote to use clean coal, oil in Anwar, or nuclear energy, which are in abundant supply.

The point today is the same as the point made in 2008: it’s not the oil companies that are “gouging” the American public. It is our government. Our Organizer in Chief needs to be sent a message: the average American is fed up with it, understands his game, and will stand with the free market before we stand with him.

A last thought: if the Republican-controlled Congress wishes to save some money, it should defund the President’s so-called “working” group. It might be good to remind him that Congress holds power over the purse.

$2B or not $2B: That is the Question

The article title is a bit of an overstatement: however, like knowing you are going to be hung tomorrow, it does tend to focus one's attention.

The City of Virginia Beach is proposing that City Council adopt a $1.74B budget for 2011-2012, a $35M expenditure increase with a 2% increase in various taxes to cover these additional costs. The City  characterizes its budget proposal as necessary because “city employees have not received raises in two years, infrastructure and maintenance needs have been deferred, and the waiting list for city services is growing.”

While the City’s needs, from its perspective, are many, the City's needs are no different than those of the average Virginia Beach family. Using the City Council’s own budget proposal and publicly available data, a Virginia Beach family-of-four over the past two years has seen its annual disposable income decrease by $9,500 (14%) and its home’s value decline by up to 17%.

The majority of the City’s proposed $35M increased cost is driven by an increase in payroll ($20M), an increase in fringe benefits ($15M), and an increase in “Pay-as You-Go” capital projects ($6M). This is offset by an overall reduction in other operating expenditures and capital borrowing (-$6M). Payroll costs are driven by raises and not by an increase in overall headcount (a year-to-year reduction from 17,313 to 17,208 (-0.6%)).

So, it appears – just like the City – the citizens’ income is declining, our homes are in need of repair, and every government agency is lining up with its hand out. Maybe it is time for the City to make some tough choices: they work for us -- not the other way around -- and we are out of money.

Progressives Lament Lack of Holes in the Pockets of the “Super Rich”

The Virginian Pilot newspaper article “Super rich keeping more in their pockets” (April 18, 2011) is misleading and is an example of what is wrong with journalism today. The subtitle reads: “Federal Tax Rate has plunged for group with incomes averaging $345 million, and half of American households pay no income tax.” This article conflates several facts in an attempt to lead the reader to a specific conclusion: the so-called “rich” are not paying their fair share, when the opposite is true.


According to the article itself: (1) the top 10% of earners pay more than 50% of all tax revenue ; (2) the bottom 45% of earners pay nothing, even though they enjoy the same benefits as all other Americans; (3) the bottom 50%, on a absolute dollar basis, enjoy the majority of the tax break benefits (interest deduction on mortgages ($77B), earned income tax credits ($55B), child tax breaks ($54B), deducting state and local taxes ($61B)). In fact, the Federal Tax Rate – which is commonly understood to mean the rates at which we are taxed by the federal government — as well as “tax breaks” available have not changed for anyone, including the “rich.” However, because the “rich’s” income has dropped like everyone else's and their deductions have remained constant, their taxes to the Treasury have dropped as a percentage of their income.

I know Americans have a reputation for not being good at math, but this citizen can do simple arithmetic. Call it what you will, but the percentage decline in revenues to the Treasury from the “rich” is not the Federal Tax Rate ... at least not yet.

Does Goosing the Tax Payer Lay More Golden Eggs?

In his article entitled, “It’s the spending, stupid,” Wesley Messamore (The Daily Caller, December 6, 2010) states, “ … annoyingly, tax cuts still seem to pervade our discussion of fiscal policy.” He argues “The real fiscal issue of our era is Washington’s spending, and whether or not Bush’s tax cuts expire is simply a negligible issue in the face of deficits that have now started to measure in the trillions of dollars for the first time in our nation’s history. It’s time to get serious about cutting spending, not taxes. Republicans should offer the Democrats this compromise: that they’ll let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire if the Democrats will help them to substantially reduce federal spending across the board.”

Interesting argument, but it misses the larger point: the average tax payer has no more money to spend on anything, especially taxes.

• Over the past two years, the average family-of-four’s disposable income in Virginia Beach has dropped 14%, house values have dropped 17%, and the city government wants to raise taxes 2%.

• 47% of all wage earners pay NO federal income tax.

• As the recent spending reduction battle in Washington shows, when all is said and done, more is said than done: of what was thought to be a $68B reduction, approximately $350M will be realized according to the CBO.

Four times in history, the US government has lowered federal tax rates and in each case actual tax revenues to the Treasury increased (in dollars, not percentage of GDP). Unfortunately, progressive government continues to spend more money than it raises in revenue. In other words, the goose can no longer lay its golden eggs fast enough, so the government wants to kill it.

The best path forward is to curb our appetite for the things the goose’s gold buys, feed the goose, and encourage it to breed. This is best done by setting annual spending caps, with automatic triggers; lowering tax rates, especially corporate tax rates; and increasing the tax base to include more of those individuals who enjoy America’s freedoms and fleeting prosperity but pay nothing to the Treasury.

A Blazing Trail of Destruction or Political Theatre: You Decide 2012

In the April 8, 2011 Virginian Pilot (Letters to the Editor, “Devastating Cuts,” April 8, 2011), Joe Cook (Hampton Roads Coordinator, MoveOn.org) asserts that Rep. Scott Rigell’s (R-2VA) support of Congressional Bill HR 1 to cut $100 billion from the budget was a “blazing trail of destruction” leading to a loss of 19,500 jobs in Virginia. He further asserts “This is a moral issue; the budget is a moral document.” In between these two statements, he inserts his favorite social programs, which may face cuts, and then sounds the clarion alarm to eliminate corporate subsidies and cut defense. While this is great political theatre, it misses two points.


First, whether the cuts are “moral” or not, stealing money from the next generation by spending money that we do not have is clearly immoral. Because the government borrows forty-three cents on each dollar of its $3.8T budget, Mr. Cook’s argument over the $100B cut is similar (in rough numbers) to our family having a monthly credit card bill of $10,000, but we can only pay $6,000 so my wife and I argue heatedly and incessantly about how to cut $26 of spending.

Second, I agree with Mr. Cook that all cost should be on the table; however, the determination of what should be cut is not just a moral decision, it is also a Constitutional decision. It is not clear to me that all of his priorities (i.e., job training grants) are Constitutional, whereas defense, for example, is clearly a Constitutional priority.

So let’s agree on this: we need to find a way to cut another $3,974 from our “home” budget. If we can’t agree, then let’s carve out those things that are clearly Constitutional expenditures and reduce everything else on a pro rata basis. That will force us to discuss what this political battle is really about: what is the purpose and scope of government and where does government’s responsibility end and the individual’s begin. In this regard, Rep. Rigell is on the right track.

Brother Can You Spare 43 Cents on the Dollar?

Over the next several weeks, Congress faces a tough debate over the 2012 budget. My back of the envelope calculation indicates that the country must cut $500 billion per year out of the budget if it has any hope of remaining solvent in the long term. I do not think that Congress is up to the challenge – they have been unable to cut $60 billion out of last year's budget, which is yet to be approved. And now, according to the Wall Street Journal, groups facing funding cuts are re-defining their marketing message to pander to the concerns of the conservative right. Specifically, Legal Services Corporation, a nonprofit that provides legal assistance to the poor, has been emphasizing that its programs exist to carry out the Founding Fathers’ desire to create fair courts. They cite the preamble to the Constitution. The House voted to reduce the corporation's $394 million appropriation for 2011 by $70 million dollars, but 68 Republicans joined with 191 Democrats to vote down a proposal to cut all funding. More community action programs are lined up behind them.


No matter how empathetic one is to social causes, the money does not exist to fund them. We are currently borrowing 43 cents of every dollar Congress spends. Second, in many cases I do not think that some of these activities are even constitutional. That said, Congress should eliminate funding that the country cannot afford, provides no return on investment, and / or is clearly unconstitutional. For example, included in this category (by way of example, but by no means inclusive) are: (1) elimination of foreign aid to countries who consistently vote against us at the UN and want to kill us, (2) funding that goes to the World Bank / IMF, (3) funding to National Public Radio, and (4) funding that goes to the National Endowment of The Arts. For me these would be straight forward decisions, but apparently not for Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, who keeps a grand piano in his office. Perhaps instead of having the public support NEA, he should simply give concerts in his office. And if he supports NPR, I suggest that he help the public out by personally giving more money to this endeavor.

Last, I do not think any Congressional Republican should entertain visits from George Schultz, who has been asked by the United States Institute of Peace, a federally-funded think tank, to ask Congress to restore its $42.7 million funding in 2011, all of which was eliminated by the House in February. Apparently the group's charter does not allow it to raise private funds: perhaps it should.

Meanderings about Gerrymandering: A Stake in the Grass Roots

Community leaders and concerned citizens turned out Monday to protest proposed redistricting maps at the Virginia General Assembly’s final public hearing. The hearing was held by the House and Senate elections committees as the General Assembly convened for a special session on redistricting. Sen. Janet Howell (D-32) presented Senate Bill 5001, the plan expected to be voted upon and approved by the full Virginia Senate, which has a 22-18 Democratic majority. In Howell’s proposed plan, the Senate Democrats grouped Republican Sens. Frank Wagner and Jeff McWaters, both of Virginia Beach, into the one district, and shoehorned Sens. Ralph Smith of Roanoke and Lynchburg's Steve Newman into another one. Sen. Frank W. Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, spoke out against the proposed redistricting plan: "They [Virginia Beach citizens] deserve — as a community of over 435,000 people — they deserve, they warrant, they earn two senators," said Wagner. “You want a yardstick for gerrymandering?” Carl Wright, a Virginia Beach resident asked the committee. “Come to our city! It’s been gerrymandered, gerrymandered, re-gerrymandered, and gerrymandered again ... “I’m asking you all today, when you look at the city of Virginia Beach, please consider all of the citizens with a fair and true representation. That’s all I ask.”


In the run-up to these hearings, Governor McDonnell appointed a bipartisan commission to make redistricting recommendations. The commission published maps that look more sensible. Three students from George Mason University showed the committee their map, which won the Virginia Redistricting Competition. Nicholas O’Boyle, one of the map’s designers, said the students’ map reduced the splits of counties to 161 from more than 300 in Howell’s map. The students’ map does not pay much attention to incumbents or political partitioning. Neither the Senate nor the House paid any attention to their inputs. Then again, since when do progressive elected officials listen to citizens when they can re-district them and thereby discount their vote.

Howell said she anticipates changes will be made to the legislation, but said her bill meets all federal and state requirements including the federal Voting Rights Act, which requires, among other things a percentage of voting districts in which minorities are a majority of the population. Not everyone agrees. In a letter to Senator Howell , Clarke County Board of Supervisors chairman Michael Hobert (Berryville) said “Clarke County strongly objects to being divided as part of the Virginia General Assembly redistricting process.” Hobert, an attorney, said that the plan also violates numerous legal precedents regarding election district creation. Citing the Guide to Local Redistricting for 2011, Hobert said that election districts are required to be “reasonably compact with irregular district shapes justified because the district line follows a political subdivision boundary or significant geographic feature” and must “represent communities of interest.” Hobert told Howell that her redistricting proposal achieves neither requirement and will divide Clarke County, a jurisdiction of less than 15,000 people and less than 10,000 registered voters, and violates the principles stated in the Guide to Local Redistricting for 2011 published by the Virginia Division of Legislative Services.

Robin Lind of the Virginia Electoral Board Association and Chesterfield County General Registrar Larry Haake said the new plans could create a substantial financial burden on Virginia's 134 counties and cities because of the number of voting precincts that would be split. Haake said that in Chesterfield alone, the plans could cost the county $600,000 to $1 million in the creation of precincts. State-wide cost is estimated at $6.2 to $6.7 million.

The governor can still fix this mess. McDonnell will get a shot at the final map. Then again, it must be approved by Obama's Department of Justice.   Wonder how that will work out for the citizens of Virginia, especially Virginia Beach?

Congress's Choice: Rude Awakening or Rule Making

Recent actions by the administration clearly demonstrate the President’s intention to circumvent enacted laws and clear direction by Congress, through regulation, on matters on which Congress has taken a firm, opposing position. Specific recent examples include:

• FCC regulation of the Internet (so called Net Neutrality) even though the FCC has no legal authority to regulate the Internet and the Congress expressly voted against his rule-making in December 2010.

• Proposed rule-making by the EPA to regulate carbon emissions (so called Cap and Trade) even though the Congress expressly voted against these policies in December 2010.

• The President’s and his Justice Department’s decision to provide special protections to non-uniformed, non-state combatants (terrorists) under so-called Protocol 1 Amendment to the Geneva Conventions, even though this provision was rejected by Congress and former President Reagan during his administration.

This should concern every American, who believes in the rule of law, as expressed by our Constitution. Only legislation that passes both Houses and is signed by the President should be enforced as law. These actions by the President and his administration marginalize the Congress, by-pass the constitutional process, and over time are intended to establish a precedent for unilaterally enacting “law” through Presidential fiat. Beyond this, it is an example of how secular progressives have and will continue to transfer power from the people to the “elected few” in their goal of global governance and a establishment of a new world order, at the expense of our individual, God-given liberties.

It is time that Congress takes action to re-establish Constitutional limits on presidential authority and reassert Federalism under the Constitution by taking one or more of the following actions:

• Pass resolutions in the House that DIRECTLY and CLEARLY repudiate the rule-making actions that are being taken by the President and are in contravention to the expressed direction of the will of the people, their elected representatives in Congress, and the Constitution of the United States.

• Under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly limit the number of “inferior officers” (this would include cabinet heads, Czars, and other regulatory officers) that can be appointed by the President and, instead, have them appointed by Congress.

• Use the budgeting process to cut funding to those administration departments that choose not to follow Congress’s expressed will.

If the foregoing actions do not produce the desired result and instead the President continues to contravene the will of the Congress, the aforementioned resolutions should be used to draw up a bill of particulars that would form the basis for impeachment, which is a power granted solely to the House of Representatives under Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution.

I fear that without action by Congress, continued Presidential “legislative action through rule-making” will make the constitution irrelevant.