verum planto vos solvo

The National debt. Why raising taxes on anyone wont work.

There's an old saying - if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. If only our leaders in Washington had taken that to heart oh so many years ago. Instead they listened to their constituents (us) who told them that they wanted more and more entitlements paid for, preferably, by someone else. This week we passed the $15 Trillion mark in our national debt. Just 10 short years ago our debt stood at $5.6 Trillion. The year I was born (1957) the national debt was $275 billion. To put that in perspective, $275 billion is about the same amount of interest that will have to be paid on President Obama's $900 billion stimulus package and the $400 billion Omnibus spending bill. And yes, the Chinese will want that in cash.

The President and his party have decided to run a class warfare campaign this election cycle. When you have no more ideas, you must demonize someone. And who better than the rich or near rich. After all, don't we all hate the rich? Well, not me. I love the 1%. They create jobs and opportunity. They take the financial risks that most of us wont take. They also pay 37% of federal taxes. The top 5% pay 58%. The bottom 50% pay 2.3%. Hardly equitable if you ask me. What about the shared sacrifice I hear so much about? When will the bottom 50% kick in just a little bit more? Just a tad. Just a smidgen.

Here's the dirty little secret you're not going to hear much. If all the wealth of people who earn over $250,000 a year were confiscated, it wouldn't be enough to run the government for 3 months. Bear in mind, we're talking about taking it all. 100%. That should give you an idea how much we spend at the federal level. $10 billion a day, to be exact. Every day. And we borrow $4 billion of that. Please explain to me how making the wealthy pay even more is going to erase that? The fact is - it wont.

It's entitlements. That's where the money is. Did you ever see that pie chart that shows how much federal spending goes towards entitlements? Of course you have. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid gobble up 56% of the chart. By 2049, just 37 years from now, Medicare and Social Security will consume 100% of all tax revenues. Because entitlement spending is funded on autopilot, no revenue will be left to pay for other government spending such as defense. Scared yet? You ought to be. Read on.

Total government spending has doubled since 1965.
Federal spending is growing faster than federal revenue.
Mandatory spending has increased 5X faster than discretionary spending. Federal spending outpaces inflation.
Defence spending has declined while entitlement spending has increased.
Total means-tested welfare spending (cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services for the poor) has increased 17-fold since the beginning of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty in 1964. Though the current trend is unsustainable, the Obama Administration plans to increase future welfare spending rather than enact true policy reforms.
The main driver behind long-term deficits is government spending—not low revenues. While revenue will surpass its historical average of 18.0 percent of GDP by 2021, spending will shoot past its historical average of 20.3 percent, reaching 26.4 percent in the same year.

BUT! Rather than enact real, necessary and yes, perhaps painful cuts - we've been told all we have to do if soak the rich for more. This tact insults my intelligence and it should insult yours as well. The geniuses in Washington have known for decades that this overspending would lead to collapse. But most of them would be long gone before the day of reckoning occurred so they didn't really care that they sold-out the country. They hooked us on entitlements - the crack of government spending. And now we must go through withdrawal to survive or collapse and die.

Class warfare is just a ruse, a tactic. It keeps people from seeing the real problem - spending. And if successful, will keep a certain party in power - free to exercise even more spending and more debt. Perhaps the day will come when a $15 trillion debt looked minuscule. Should that happen, I hope you have a lot of canned goods stored in your basement. Right next to the ammunition. You may need both.

As long as they stay on the plantation - Democrats love blacks.








Herman Cain is black. But not Jesse Jackson or Louis Farrakhan black. And therein lies the problem. Mr. Cain is a start-from-nothing-pull-yourself-up-self-made success Conservative black. He believes in guaranteed equal opportunity, not guaranteed equal outcomes. That's a big no-no and threat to the black establishment that allies itself with the Democratic Party. Yeah, he's been called an Uncle Tom. But that's among the nicest things the left has to say about him. I expected the foulball comments from Harry Belafonte and Jenine Garofalo. But an alleged reporter should know better. Then again, the reporter is from MSNBC - also know as the television arm of the White House and Democratic National Committee. MSNBC's Karen Finney commented: “Very seriously, and this is a little harsh, but one of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel OK, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he is giving that base a free pass and I think they like him because they think he is a black man that knows his place. And I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.” Nice, huh. "A black man who knows his place". This brought to you by the people who say they believe in diversity - as long as we're not talking about political diversity among American blacks. Can you imagine the outrage had any Conservative said anything similar about a black liberal Democrat?


Google "comments by Democrats about Herman Cain" and you'll see that the above comment is one of the tamer things said about Mr. Cain. But why? Aren't Democrats the party who has looked out for African Americans ? Well, we'll come back to that in a moment.




The Democratic party does love black America. As long as its the black America they want. Since the 1960's, the federal government has spent over $4 trillion in social programs that most often benefited lower income blacks. Mostly Democratic programs that often offered a hand out but not much of a hand up. The proof is in the numbers. Today, there is a larger percentage of poor blacks than there was in 1964. 70% of black babies are born out-of-wedlock. By every measurable method, American blacks have shown little benefit in government monies meant to help them. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped them from voting Democratic en mass. Personally, I can't imagine pledging my unwavering allegiance to an ideology or party that, in over half a century, has failed miserably to assist in my upward mobility and quality of life. But maybe that's just me. The Democratic party has convinced black Americans that they don't have much of a chance at any measurable level of success, unless they align themselves with the party. To quote Mr. Cain; "I refuse to stay on the plantation, that's why they attack me."




Herman Cain threatens that monopoly as does every other black Conservative/Republican. He and others like him must be ridiculed as lap dogs to the Republican party. Once black America dares to look over the fence to the other side, the Democratic hold on the black demographic is in danger. Blacks vote 95% for Democratic candidates. And their votes are often the difference in many an election, especially in large urban centers. Democrats cannot afford to lose their allegiance - in other words, their votes. And so they must play the race card. I suppose they have to. The power given to them by the unions is dwindling with union membership - even though they can still count on 98% of union campaign dollars going to Democrats. That's right. 98%. And just as with black Americans - hows' that blind allegiance working out for you?




You may assume I am a Cain supporter. I am not. But I love his success story and his ideology of personal responsibility and pro-growth agenda. And isn't it ironic that in this environment it is Conservative voices (you know, the ones who hate minorities) who stand arm and arm with Mr. Cain? You see, contrary to what you may be spoon fed by major media outlets, the majority of Conservatives don't care what color you are. Or what you sexual preference is. We have quite a big tent, actually. Nor do we call those who oppose us politically disgusting and vile names. Unlike our opposition - we really don't care about those things. We care about character. We care about civility. We care about ideas. And it matters not to us the color of the person presenting them. That is another distinction between us and our opposition.

ObamaCare. Free birth control! Or is it?

Upon debating the new government health insurance reform bill (ObamaCare) then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated; "We have to pass the bill to know what's in the bill". Scary stuff from an elected official who has the ability to run roughshod over our liberties. But as it turns out, she was right. The most recent affirmation happened this week when it was revealed that starting August 1, 2012 birth control pills for women will be free. Insurance companies will no longer be able to bill you for the pills nor charge you a co-pay. And it wont count against your deductible either. Great news, right? After all who doesn't like free stuff. Hell, our whole country is built on free stuff paid for by others. (Look up "social justice") Well, free may not exactly mean free. At least not in the end.

The cost of providing free contraceptives to women (but not men, Hmmm) will cost you a bundle in increased insurance premiums. The insurance companies will take a financial hit in the billions. Did you expect them to just absorb such a loss? Uh, no. They will pass on the cost to you, me and if you have a job - your employer. But it's worse than just that. Since the cost of providing health care insurance to employees will rise, one has to wonder how many employers will be eager to hire new personnel knowing the additional costs they'll incur. More job killing legislation.
But why stop at free birth control? Why not free aspirin? Or free ACE bandages? Maybe even free valet parking at your next Dr's visit. And make the evil insurance companies pay dearly for it.

There is such a thing as the cost of unintended consequences. Apparently, our illustrious leaders in Washington aren't familiar with this notion. Or maybe they are. The idea has been floated that the whole idea of the feds massive intrusion into the health care system was its eventual complete takeover. Sound crazy? Well hold on. Barack Obama stated in 2006 that he would like to see a single payer (government) system. But acknowledged that it would be too difficult to implement in one fell swoop. So it would have to be implemented "incrementally". In fact, many on the left were not in favor of the ObamaCare legislation precisely because it didn't offer a single payer option. Once the government controls your health care, they've got it all. When combined with your retirement (Social Security) they will have you dependent on them for nearly everything. And they'll be no other option for you once they eliminate private competition. The feds can crush private business either through legislation like this or by competing with them directly with a government plan. Since the feds can run massive red ink and a private company can't... say goodbye to private insurance. If you think private insurance has its problems (mostly because of government mandates & regulations) wait till the government controls it and they're your only option. They've done such a great job with everything else.

In countries such as Canada where health care is the exclusive domain of the government, patients cross the US border to have procedures performed here rather than wait for months and months for surgery. The wait time for a mammogram in Italy is 6 months. In England you must be seen by a doctor within 1 hour of your arrival. But the clock doesn't start till you actually enter the hospital. So ambulances are stacked outside in the parking lot. And to pay for this magnificent privilege of government run health care, the average wage earner gets to pay massive taxes.

There is no free lunch. Everything costs something and you usually get what you pay for. Unless of course you're talking birth control pills. And why no free condoms? This smacks of sexism to me. Sometimes additional lubrication might be required. Why not free K-Y jelly? It only makes sense if your mandating free birth control. Sound crazy? Well, Washington is the home base of crazy and the White House is it's current epicenter. If only Barack's Mom had access to free birth control.

The end of America. Death by suicide.


I tend to be a pretty optimistic person. But events of the past few weeks leave me with very little to be positive about regarding the future of our Republic. (And yes, it's a Republic, Not a Democracy. Look it up) The debt ceiling has been raised, yet no one who crafted the deal seems particularly happy about the arrangement. Well, neither am I. This elevation of the debt ceiling allows the government to borrow even more money it doesn't have without serious spending cuts. Currently the federal government borrow 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Go back and re-read that last sentence. Go ahead - I'll wait here. If that isn't frightening to you then you may not quite understand the implications. Imagine borrowing 40 cents of every dollar your household spends. How long could that go on without experiencing serious financial repercussions? Exactly. But that's what we're doing to satiate our appetite for federal spending. The annual federal budget is about $3.7 trillion. We borrow via the sale of treasury bills about $1.3 trillion.

Entitlement account for the largest share of that $3.7 trillion. And for many elected officials - those entitlements are "off the table" because they don't want to alienate a specific constituancy - the elderly, families with kids in school, unions, etc. (Apparently they're not concerned with alienting the constituancy that will actually have to pay for those entitlements - the next two generations because they'll be long gone by then). Thomas Jefferson said that each generation should pass a debt free nation on to the next. Yeah. Good luck with that. That ship has sailed and is on it's way to sinking.

Fixing the problem and not kicking it down the road would require telling the American people things they probably don't want to hear. Within the next 10 years our debt may match our Gross Domestic Product. If you're guessing that that's not a good thing - you're correct. Move ahead two spaces but don't collect $200. because we don't have it. Increasing taxes upon the rich seems to be the target du' jour. I only wish we had enough rich people to pay for the debt as some people think. But the truth is we don't. Not even close. In fact if ALL the wealth of everyone who makes over $250,000 were confiscated by the government - it would only be enough money to run the government for 3 months. Everytime the eggheads in Washington crow about saving $10 billion just remember, that's about 24 hours of federal spending. It's that bad. Federal spending has increased 39% in the last 3 years. Are you 39% better off?

The solution is bitter medicine. Medicare has to be restructured completely in the near future. It is by far the biggest chunk of the budget & has unfunded liablities of $33 trillion. Tinkering around the edges wont cut it. Social Security isn't quite as bad off but it's close. People are living much longer than the life expectancy of 65 when the program was initiated. That means people are collecting for a much longer period than the program was ever designed for. The retirement age must be raised and benefits trimmed - and soon or there wont be anything available for future generations. As it stand now - we only have IOU's in the form of Treasury bills in the Social Security fund. It was drained of actual cash long ago. Like most Ponzi schemes, you had to be there at the beginning to get your money.

Since the President says everyone must sacrifice, I assume he means everyone. That means trimming Medicaid entitlements and other programs the federal government never was intended to enact. (Read the 10th Ammendment) When the ailment is life threatening, the medicine must be strong. But don't worry.
None of this is going to happen.

Why? Because most politicians vote according to the wishes of their constituants so they can get re-elected. And who's going to vote for somebody who levels this truth at them? It's not a very pleasant truth. Certainly not one most people want to hear much less have to deal with. But facts are stubborn things and the math is pretty simple. So enjoy the ride as much as you can. America is doomed to flame out all because our greed for eating at the government trough couldn't be satiated. Not because we didn't pay enough in taxes. We just assumed someone else was going to pay the bulk of our benefits. Someone who could afford to pay more than us. And we assumed that those grand fellows and ladies in Washington we elected must be so much brighter than the rest of us. Surely they have it all figured out, right? Yeah, they've got it figured out alright. Invoke class warfare. Keep factions fighting with each other. Claim the "other guys" don't care about you. Maybe no one will notice you're giving them sugar cookie treats that their kids & grandkids will be paying for.

America could never be conquored by a foreign army. Instead it will die at it's own hands. Not with the bang of a cannon or thrust of a bayonette. It will wither and succomb under it's own financial suicide. The funny thing is - most of us saw it coming. But nobody wanted to arrange an intervention.

Absent a plan Democrats employ "MEDISCARE"








Senior citizens have been, as a whole, a reliable voting block for the Democratic party. I have to wonder why, considering how little regard they have for them. Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed Medicare plan doesn't affect seniors currently on Medicare at all. In fact it wouldn't affect anyone over the age of 55. But that hasn't stopped the Dems from frightening seniors with horror stories of how the GOP wants to change their Medicare health coverage. You've seen the Dems TV ad showing grandma being pushed off a cliff by a not-to-dissimilar Paul Ryan character. Classy ad. It's one thing to have a passionate debate - it's quite another to deliberately distort facts in an effort to scare your constituents. That serves no one.

Medicare is in serious trouble. By comparison, Social Security is a cash fountain. Independent sources have Medicare going flat broke on 10 years. That ain't that far off kiddies. Tinkering around the edges wont cure what ails this program. It's way past time for a serious discussion as to what Medicare will evolve into within the next decade and beyond. Paul Ryan's plan calls for what essentially is a voucher program. The government issues seniors a check and allows them to purchase coverage by whatever insurance company they like. Unlike Medicare, you will have "choice". Most seniors currently have a secondary insurance plan. Medicare covers 80% of their costs while the secondary picks up the balance. The current cost of Medicare to a senior is about $100.00 a month. A bargain when you consider the secondary insurance can charge $175.00 or more just to pick up the remaining 20%. For a $100.00 a month premium, the bulk of your healthcare needs are met at a time when you are most likely to use it and with great frequency. Is it any wonder why the program is in such trouble?

Currently, the Medicare program has unfunded liabilities near 30 trillion dollars. The program is unsustainable. That's a fact no matter what your party affiliation. Future senior healthcare recipients will have two choices. A higher cost for good benefits. Or lower costs for virtually no benefits - witness Medicaid. These are the choices that 40 years of unsustainable promises has left us. I work in healthcare. 20 years ago an Ophthalmologist would collect about $1200.00 for a cataract surgery. Today Medicare pays nearly half that amount. Yet the doctor's staffing, malpractice insurance, etc. have not gone down 50%. Cataract surgery is the number one surgery performed in America today. As baby boomers age, it will still be the number one surgery but by a far greater percentage. Based upon past history - a doctor can expect to be paid about $250.00 by the time I'm ready. I pay more than that for a brake job. Many Ophthalmologists have decided to give up performing cataract surgery and who can blame them. Some doctors are refusing to participate with Medicare. It's just not financially feasible. So much for the benefits of government run healthcare. And make no mistake - that's what Medicare is.

To keep costs contained, medical surgeries and procedures will be denied. But not by the evil insurance companies - but by the new government Affordable Healthcare program. For all the scare tactics used such as how insurance companies will deny you a procedure - government insurance, Medicare denies benefits at a higher ratio. That's something you'll never hear on the 6:00 news.

In the end, Paul Ryan's plan wont pass the Senate. And if it did, The President wouldn't sign it so you can forget about it. But eventually some plan will have to be designed, accepted and implemented to save the program. It wont look the same as our parent's Medicare. It will have to evolve or cease to exist at all. Medicare as it was enacted in 1965 was always unsustainable. But politicians can do the math and many figured they'd be long gone by the time this impending disaster arrived - leaving someone else to clean up the mess.


Till now, Democrats have been getting away with calling any Republican Medicare restructuring efforts, "barbaric" and "draconian". But eventually, people will demand to see the Democratic plan. And trashing your opponent without producing a plan of your own is no plan at all. I'm certain there's a compromise out there that will provide for future seniors (me) and do it in a financially solvent way. I just don't know it it will actually happen soon enough before the wheels come off the whole damn thing. And if it does, remember - it happened in part because we put so much trust in elected officials who told us what we wanted to hear - not what we needed to hear.

Memorial Day 2011




I hesitate to tell this story because it might sound as though I'm attempting to flatter myself. But as you plow forward, you'll see that's not what this is about. A while back, my wife & I were having dinner at a local restaurant when we noticed a solitary uniformed soldier having dinner as well. As he was nearing the end of his meal, I called our waitress over and told her that I wanted to pay for his dinner. I was about halfway through explaining this when she smiled and nodded her head. She must have been through this before. Judging by what I saw him eat, I showed the waitress an amount of money, asked her if it would be enough, including a tip. She assured me it was more then enough. I asked her not to tell him who had paid for the meal but simply to say that it had been taken care of. Michele and I left before he was ever told the meal was paid for, which is exactly as I wanted it. The absolute last thing I wanted was for him to come over to our table and thank me. This was about thanking him - even with so small a gesture.




I have a soft spot for military personnel. I have never been asked to pick up a weapon, stand a post and defend it at any cost. Yet there are those who do exactly that. And they do it voluntarily without great fanfare and compensation. As I write this, there are American soldiers and Marines baking in the 110 degree heat of Afghanistan and Iraq. It matters not if you personally believe we belong in those theaters. It matters that there are those who will answer such a call. I don't know where America finds such men and women but there seems to be no shortage of them and I thank God for that. A few years ago, I saw an Army Lieutenant in Afghanistan being interviewed by an ABC News reporter. The reported noted that the Lieutenant graduated from Princeton University and could easily be living a more profitable and comfortable existence outside of the military. She asked him why was he in the military at all? His response was simple. He answered; "There will be time for that later. Right now, I'm here because I want to serve my country". That remark made the reporter look like a total doof. She couldn't imagine someone who would sacrifice their money making ability and personal safety like that. Thankfully, the Lieutenant had no problem with his decision. Where I come from, we call men like that "heroes".


Throughout our nation's history, we have been endowed by individuals who realize they are part of something bigger than themselves. The US military cemeterys around the world are a testement to this. In todays world, it's easy to become distracted by people and things of little or no consequence. We are saddened when a Hollywood icon dies - as though they were part of our family. But we can't remember many or any of our fallen American heroes. The most recent is Army Spc. Brandon M. Kirton, 25 of Centennial, Colorado. He was a member of the 101st Airborne and killed by insurgents in Afghanistan. I don't know much about him. He may have been married with a child - or he may have been single. Republican or Democrat? I have no idea. Straight or Gay - I don't care. All I know is that he was prepared to give the ultimate sacrifice if called upon. And sadly, that's the way it played out for Brandon. There are no words I can think of that would sufficiently comfort a Mother like Brandon's. But I think of the words of Abraham Lincoln in a letter he sent to a mother who lost 5 sons in the Civil War. In part he wrote:

"I feel how weak and fruitless any word of mine which should attempt to beguille you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your berevement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom."

A. Lincoln, 1864

Mrs. Kirton has herself laid that "costly sacrifice" upon the altar of freedom as well, but she is not alone. As in the past, many a good man and woman has paid the ultimate price. This coming weekend many of us will attend picnics and backyard gatherings. We'll enjoy the food and the company. We'll enjoy the long holiday weekend. And sadly, little of our time will actually involve making a conscious effort to thank those who over the past 235 years have died to keep us free. No one is asking you to pick up a weapon and storm a beach. You're not required to spend the night huddled up against a cold wall defending your position. Or kick open a door without knowing what's behind it. But we can honor those still here who serve by proudly flying our flag and making a simple donation to organizations who support our military. I choose to donate to Disabled American Veterans and the USO. You can do as you see fit. But I urge you to do something that honors our heroes that have fallen and remind our current service personnel that you have not forgotten their sacrifice. That's not a lot to ask between bites of your hotdog, is it? We truly are the land of the free, because of the brave.

Want to see my "inflammatory photos"?



The President has decided not to release photos of a dead bin Laden. Apparently he fears the world wide release of such photos would be "inflammatory" and suggested that the photos might be used as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. (Where have I heard this before.) That's the same argument he's made for closing Gitmo and yet Gitmo remains open. Convenient hypocrisy. Can we finally put to rest the illusion that actions taken by the U.S. are "recruiting tools"? Those sympathetic to Islamic extremism need no prompting from any U.S. actions to join the twisted ideology that embodies Al Qaeda. They're already sold on the idea. No further sales pitches are needed.


The President says that the photos would be inflammatory. Well, let me show you a photo that I always found particularly inflammatory. I've posted it here for your viewing. The photo has been called falling man for obvious reasons. The man in the photo jumped from a window high in the World Trade Center to avoid burning to death. Imagine the choice that he had to make. Imagine choosing to plummet a thousand feet to your demise as a viable alternative to some harsher mode of death. This man was not alone in making that choice. Dozens of others made the same choice that day. I can't begin to imagine being placed in such a situation. And earlier in that bright September morning, I doubt any of them thought such a choice would ever be required. We were all exposed to graphic violence that day. We saw the planes - loaded with passengers some as young as 2 years old, crash into the WTC again and again. We saw tons of steel and concrete cave in on emergency personnel. We saw a city devastated. A nation wounded. And we saw the people jump from those windows.



How can you incite an ideology that videotapes an American citizen, Nick Berg being beheaded then distributes the video? Or blows up innocent people gathered at a wedding? How do you get into the mind of the animals who would contemplate then execute such inhumane and evil acts? And then how can you believe that posting a photo of their dead leader could possibly incite them to do even worse? If Al Qaeda had an operable nuclear device at their disposal, do you have any doubts at all that they would use it?


I've seen evil and so have you. I've seen how far evil will go and now I need to see the mortal face of evil defeated - if only to assert to the world that we will not allow such acts to go unpunished. Mr. President, we are made of tougher stuff than you think. We've endured the loss and pain of September 11, 2001 and the personal loss that so many military families have endured in the aftermath of that day. After 10 years and 3000 lost lives later, we deserve to see the result of the retribution that was leveled. If the rest of the world has no stomach for it, then they can turn away. If those who sympathize with the terrorists are incited to fight us - we can assume they would have been urged to do so with or without any photos in the equation. Perhaps I am not as good a Christian as I hope to be. Maybe I shouldn't rejoice in the death of another human being. But I do. It's been said that only God can pass judgement on another human being. Well, now that were done with Bin Laden... God can have him.

Unicorn farts and our energy policy








Some day in the future, we'll have an as-of-yet discovered source of energy that will allow us to provide all the power necessary to run our homes. And that clean, renewable, as-of-yet discovered energy source will probably be about the size of a Coke can. Oh what a wonderful day that will be... someday. But it wont be in my lifetime. I don't say that pessimistically but realistically. Since I was a kid I heard that the salvation of renewable energy was going to be either solar or wind. Over half a century later, it's clear that neither one of those alternatives is able to create enough electricity to power an 18th century economy much less a 21st century economy. That doesn't mean that solar and wind should be dismissed. But they should be placed in the category of "to be used as auxiliary energy sources". Not primary. It isn't sunny everyday and it isn't windy everyday but we need energy everyday. Some of the biggest opponents to wind power is the extreme political left. Yeah, I know I was surprised too. But I checked and currently 32 wind turbine projects are on "hold" or being objective to in the courts because of environmental concerns by numerous eco-groups. Mostly they are concerned about the impact such wind turbines will have upon the migratory patterns of certain birds. Well, birds do fly and it's not inconceivable that more than a few will fly into a spinning wind turbine from time to time... assuming it's a windy day. Others object to wind turbines that will be anchored miles off the coast. The most notable were the plans to install wind turbines off the well-to-do vacation playground of Marthas Vineyard. Apparently the Kennedys, Kerrys and others objected to the idea because the towers would disrupt their view of the Atlantic from their estates. Especially interesting since the towers were to be installed 11 miles out at sea.

Solar power may be great for powering up backyard patio light but not so great for illuminating  a major city. There simply isn't enough land mass to lay out enough photovoltaic cells to provide sufficient electricity unless you want to turn Michigan into one giant solar panel. Solar technology may well advance in the next 50 years. But based upon the limited solar technology advancements of the last 50 years, I doubt it. And not surprisingly, there are ecological objections to solar farms just as there are to wind farms.

Then there's oil - the big bad meany on the block. Everyone hates oil until they want to drive their car. Depending who you talk to, peak oil production has already occurred though this is in dispute. New technology allows oil to be extracted in areas never before thought possible. That technology will allow us access to additional reservoirs of oil in land and beneath the sea and with a much smaller footprint. Again, environmentalists bemoan the potential damage. And they're right. The damage done to the Gulf region last year was substantial. And those responsible must be held accountable. But removing drilling platforms from the Gulf region further damaged an already fragile economy. The response should not be to shut down offshore drilling but find ways to make it safer and more productive. Remember, this was a single oil platform's blowout preventer failure - not a systematic one. Hurricanes & typhoons have toppled platforms globally without oil spillage. The safety record is actually quite good although you'd never know it by the news reports. It's not news if everything works as designed, I guess. No one stops driving their car because an accident is possible. The space program didn't halt because of the Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia accidents. Nor should we stop trying to extract oil from regions where we know it lies because something might go wrong. Learn from the mistakes and move on. Until our cars run on Leprechaun smiles and Unicorn farts, oil is going to be the energy currency of the realm. Get used to it.

So what's a country to do?

Again, I have no doubts that one day future generations will look back upon the age of fossil fuels as the dark ages of modern energy. But that's a criticism to be made by our great-great-grandchildren. Not our children or grandchildren. And until that glorious day of enlightenment occurs, we'll have to rely upon oil, nuclear, natural gas and the other equally evil sources of energy. Technology can make them safer and cleaner. But they will never be 100% safe or 100% clean. America has not built a nuclear power plant in over 30 years, yet France derives 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. The US about 20%. The French are on their way to energy independence or at least far ahead of the United States. We're still using oil and coal fired electrical plants. Yes, I know. Japan isn't having a love affair with nuclear power right now. But how many earthquakes & tsunamis are going to damage the world's nuclear power plants annually? The Chernobyl nuclear reactor was not encased in concrete as nearly every other reactor is. Had it been, the damage would have been very limited. (The former Soviet Union wasn't very concerned with safety issues) Even the father of nuclear disasters, Three Mile Island was ultimately a result of human error- not a malfunction of a particular system and produced no deaths or calculable health issues per the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's final report. Currently there are 440 nuclear power plants worldwide. They produce as much electricity as all other combined sources of power in 1960. Still they only produce only 14% of our energy supply. Meanwhile coal accounts for 40% of electrical generation worldwide. And we know how Al Gore feels about that.

Energy will always be expensive, risky to produce and potentially damaging. And until that day when that new, clean, nearly free, yet-to-be-named energy source is announced, we're all going to have to come to terms with fact that our current sources of energy are in here to stay. Denying this fact wont make energy any cleaner or less expensive. Besides, Unicorn farts are in such short supply as it is.

THE DEBT. "What I know. What I don't know."


Math was never my strong suit. Some would argue neither is speaking clearly or walking upright for prolonged periods of time. But the grasp of math I do possess causes me great concern when I think about the crushing debt of the United States.


First, I'll talk about what I know.


As I write this, the two party's are trying to hash out an agreement that will either cut federal spending by $30 billion dollars or $60 billion dollars for the remainder of the current fiscal year and keep a government shutdown from happening. The feds spend about $36 billion a day. The current federal budget is $3.7 TRILLION. The cuts that are being discussed in Washington are like a cup of water out of the ocean. Or approximately a 2 ounce weight loss from Rosie O'Donnell. And yet to hear the Democrats talk you'd think that the republic is going to end because we may not fund a cowboy poetry festival in Senator Reids home state of Nevada.


At the beginning of the fiscal year 2000 we had a national debt of $5.6 trillion. As of March 31, 2011 it stands at $14.2 trillion. Now I may not be real good at math, but I can see where this is going. Since the dawn of Roosevelt's New Deal we have set this nation on a path of inevitable debt. Social Security for example, was never intended to fund a persons retirement. It was meant to be a safety net to supplement a retirement nest egg that you were suppose to provide yourself. While the benefits became more generous, the amount of people contributing to a single retiree dwindled. At the beginning of the program, the average life expectancy of a man was 65. It was thought that the average person might collect benefits for 3 to 4 years. My father has been collecting for 24 years. My Mother, for 22. And they're not untypical. In the beginning there were 18 workers for every retiree receiving benefits. That number is now 2.3 workers. As babyboomers advance into retirement age, the number of workers to retirees ration will narrow even more. We will then have a nightmare - the largest amount of Social Security recipients financed by the smallest percentage of workers in the history of the program. Social Security may have been well intentioned. But it was a well intentioned pyramid scheme. And yet Social Security is not our biggest problem.



Medicare requires even more attention. In 1966 it was estimated that Medicare would cost $5 billion by 1990. When 1990 rolled around the real price tag was $95 billion. Ooops! Clearly, this was before the age of calculators. Government always over promises and usually at a far lower price than initially quoted. They just can't help themselves. In that respect, they're like home contractors. Supplying seniors with a voucher type system that would allow them to choose a policy of their own, would drastically reduce cost to the program. Especially when you consider that another 100 million people in the national medical pool would create competition among health insurance companies for those dollars. Allowing medical insurance companies to sell policies across state lines would create significant competition. I can buy my house , life and car insurance from a company in Kansas, but not my health insurance. In what universe does that make sense? But those options were not even considered when ObamaCare was shoved up us like a colonoscopy.


So what are the answers to our problems? Well, we could tax the rich more. But consider that the top 1% earn 19% of income but pay 37% of taxes. And the top 10% pay 68% of taxes. The bottom 50% pay 3%. So much for shared sacrifice. Besides do you really want to raise taxes on the job producers? That never worked before. Go ask Jimmy Carter. So maybe raising taxes isn't a real solution to our problems.



If the average Joe finds himself in a financial bind, he usually cuts back on spending. Especially things he can't afford and may not really need. (Like a cowboy poetry festival) The last thing he'll do is go on a spending spree. Yet that's exactly what we did with that charming little stimulus package. $800 billion. $1.3 trillion when you add interest. And yes, we have to pay interest. Suddenly the $60 billion in cuts the GOP is asking for doesn't seem so big, does it. The stimulus package was meant to keep unemployment under 8%. The current rate is higher than that even now two years after it passed. When you factor in the true unemployment rate - people whos benefits have expired and are no long registered as unemployed and those who have given up looking for work, the rate is well into double digits.


What I don't know.


I don't know when we're going to have politicians with enough backbone to tell us what we don't want to hear. There are some voices of reason out there. But they are drowned out by those who employ class warfare and claim reformers want to to starve Grandma so fat cats can buy new Mercedes. It's popular in some circles to say "Raise taxes on those who have too much money"! Well, how much is too much? And who gets to decide? People of all economic strata earn their money. The government isn't entitled (there's that word again) to one dime. So they confiscate some with a tax code and redistribute it as they see fit - usually to curry favor with one group or another. Another reason why a flat tax makes the most sense and will be almost impossible to implement. Besides if incomes over $250,000 were taxed at a cartoonish 80% rate, it's impact on the debt would be negligible. That's right. Negligible. I understand we need revenue and taxes are necessary. But more necessary is fiscal restraint. You see, we don't have a tax revenue problem. We have a spending problem. And until the powers in control of doling out cash to their favored constituents are really ready to address that issue - the $14.2 trillion debt we have now will seem like chump change 10 years from now when it's approaches $40 trillion.

"The death of leadership... and Libyan freedom."


Muammar Quadaffi is a nut. On any given day, he makes Charlie Sheen look stable. And it doesn't matter how you spell his name. Quadaffi. Gadaffi. Kadhafi. Forty years after he seized power in Libya, the press still has no consensus on its proper spelling and neither do I. But I do know this. Thousands of Libyan freedom fighters are daring to take on this maniac's regime by fighting in the streets with weapons that are no match for his army or hired mercenaries. And still they fight. Kind of reminds me of the Colonial Minutemen vs. the Red Coats and Hessians. We can only hope that the outcome is similar. But we can do much more than hope - a popular buzzword in the 2008 election. We can help change things. The Resistance is not asking - nor should we even consider - introducing American ground troops. But they could benefit from the protection of a no-fly zone. Such no-fly zones have been used before in the 1990's in Iraq & the Balkins. And by both Republican & Democrat presidents. They are designed to protect people on the ground from dictators who use air power to squelch dissidents. Or in the case of both the Balkins and Iraq's Kurdish population - to stop ethnic cleansing. In Libya, it could be used to save the lives of thousands who are at the mercy of Quadaffi's air force. And it would give the rebels breathing room as well. Any military man will tell you that in todays world - air power rules and sets the tone for all engagements.
Once again, this President is impotent in foreign affairs. Either by his lack of experience in an executive position or by his fear of taking the lead and being responsible for its outcome. Even his most cherished piece of legislation - "ObamaCare" was not written by him but rather his party in the House of Representatives. His contribution was his signature. Because he holds a world view on nearly everything, he neglects to understand that sometimes he must act not only the interests of the United States but also those who seek to emulate us. I'm under no illusion that Libya will become a Constitutional Republic in a post Quadaffi Libya. But they will have no opportunity to have one with him in power. We can wait for UN resolution after UN resolution and sanctions. The Libyans cannot. While we attempt to please the Germans, Russians and Chinese at the UN Security Counsel, Quadaffi lays waste to another couple of hundred freedom fighters. Words of condemnation will have no effect in this matter. Quadaffi is no different from Hitler or Saddam Hussein in this way. He understands and respect power. Nothing else. He would sacrifice his entire country to keep it - like so many tyrants before him.
Last year, hundreds of thousands of young Iranians flooded the streets of Tehran to protest the Mullahs and demand reforms that included true democratic elections. The United States responded with the deafening sound of silence. Instead of offering at least our verbal support to those who believe in individual rights - the President said nothing and the crowd was mowed down like so much grass. In his defense, maybe the TelePrompter wasn't plugged in so he didn't know what to say.
The United States is different from any other country. Like it or not we have an obligation - not to be the policeman of the world - but to help those who would stand up to the unelected scum who hold themselves in power with the blood of the innocents. In a world that embrasses so many shades of grey, some things are simply black and white. Either we stand with those who crave freedom or we do not. And should they fall in their attempt while we stood silent, a bit of their blood is splattered upon us. All that is necessary for evil to prosper, is for good men to do nothing.

Global Warming & Polyester Slacks

It's 1977. Global temperatures have been on the decline since 1940. Nobody disputes this. Not the scientists at MIT. Not the intellectual elites of highly touted eastern liberal universities. Not even Al Gore. It can't be denied any more. The facts are just so impressive and undeniable. And to deny the facts in evidence are to expose your idiocy. Nope, the studies are in and the "experts" all agree -global cooling is real! Such is what we were informed in 1977. Could the experts be so wrong, so misinformed or misguided? And if they are, were they wrong then or now? Allow me to clear the confusion. First of all - climate change is real. Of course it is. The global climate has always been changing. At various times in the Earth's history, tropical forests once flourished were deserts now take residence. Ocean temperatures and levels have risen and fallen. And glaciers have advanced and retreated many times - all before man ever appeared upon the planet. Sorry to break this news to you but man isn't responsible for the fluctuations in the Earth's climate. Sure, we've been told that our carbon dioxide levels have risen and created the greenhouse effect that is raising the planet's temperature. But Co2 accounts for less than 2% of the Earth's atmospheric makeup. The number one greenhouse gas is water vapor. Just try doing without that. We've all seen the satellite photos of the diminishing polar ice caps over the recent years. However, those same ice caps have grown and receded many times over the last millennium. We have ice core samples that prove this - we just don't have those impressive satellite pictures from 1776. Yeah, yeah I saw the pictures of ice falling off of the glaciers into the ocean too. Impressive, right? Well, that's a normal event. Has been forever. So much so that there's a scientific name for it. It's called "shedding". And those poor polar bears! Tsk, tsk. However will they survive without expansive ice? Well, the bears may not be too happy about it but I bet the seals are. Polar bears had a good run. Let the seals be dominant for the next 1000 years. Maybe it's time for the bears to go extinct like the T-Rex. Trust me, nobodies going to miss the Polar Bears. I ain't exactly cryin' cause there aren't T-Rex's sauntering through my local dog park. Okay, back to the science.
If you remember bigger snows when you were a child, you're probably right. Global temperatures fell by 2.7 degrees making the years from 1940 to 1975 colder than normal. Hence, the global cooling hysteria of 1977. During the Middle Ages temperatures climbed, making planting crops in Greenland and other previously cold regions warm enough to farm. Thousands in Europe were well fed but died due to the heat. In the mid to late 1770's snow fell in New England til June. Crops failed throughout the colonies because of colder temps and again, thousands died. It was a true mini Ice Age and almost crushed the rebellion for the colonies as much as the redcoats did.
My local weatherman can't predict whats going to happen this Friday with much accuracy let alone predict the global weather patterns 100 years from now. So forgive me if I'm not buying what they're selling. I can make the argument that global temperatures are climbing due to the arrival and wide use of polyester in the late 1970's. Think about it. Groovy polyester slacks and shirts hit the racks and suddenly the planet warms up. Sound ridiculous? Sure. Just as ridiculous that during the incredible expansion of industrialization after WW II, global temps remained cool. From 1945 to 1975 we saw incredible economic growth globally. There were few safeguards to the environment. Pollutants filled the air round the world. Yet for 30 plus years, global temps were cool. The global warming crowd states that 1998 was the year that saw the temps rise globally. That's one hell of a delay.
Finally. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It occurs naturally. Hell, I'm creating some right now and so are you. Living things thrive on it. It's part of our environment and has been at higher and lower levels for tens of thousands of years - long before incandescent light bulbs or Ford Mustangs.
In 2007, the BBC produced a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It's the other side to Al Gore "An Inconvenient Truth". In the documentary, much of the Global Warming crowd's claims are refuted and disputed using evidence and studies by well known climatologists and scientists. Before you make up your mind about the merits of Man-made Global Warming, its good to hear opposing comments. It is posted on YouTube and you can view it by clicking on the link here. www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk Otherwise, I'm going to have to give up Polyester.