American Democracy: Is the End in Sight?

I recently had one of my readers e-mail me to request I write an article on how our elected officials in Congress can pass legislation that approximately 2/3 of the population is not in favor of, or believes we need right now. This is not easy to answer when for 200 years we have had a democracy, “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Obviously, this was the intent of our founding fathers, but it no longer appears to be the practice of our legislators. Our population has become more diverse with many special interest groups and the federal government has taken upon itself to cater to the demands of these groups, invade every aspect of our lives, and than decide the winners and losers.

Now that the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party has dominant control of Congress, and we just elected a President who is a believer in big government and the re-distribution of wealth, we have a situation where these progressive politicians think they know what’s best for you. Maybe it’s because they believe that we are not an informed public or don’t have the time or interest to become more informed. This has always been the credo of the elite liberal establishment.

The fact that this healthcare package, which affects 1/6 of the economy, is being rushed through Congress to meet some artificial deadline created by Obama because he says we need it now, is a vivid illustration that he knows what’s best for you and your opinion is not important. Also, the method by which this legislation is being debated (or not debated) is what one would expect from a corrupt regime:

The pretense of a debate
Partisan rules and involvement only
Bribery for votes via favors and pressure
Legislation written behind closed doors by a selected few
Media pressured to ignore the process

Does this sound like the United States of America or more like Red China, the old USSR, or maybe the new Venezuela?

I hope this answers my reader’s question. If we still are the democracy we once were, the only way to reverse this is in the ballot box. We will see in the 2010 and 2012 elections whether we are informed or care enough. Since Obama’s election victory came, in large part, from precincts populated by the less educated and those who pay no taxes, the current result is obvious.

An apathetic or impotent public leads to tyrannical government, it happened in Rome, Germany, China, Africa, and many countries in the Mid-East. It is almost unbelievable that it can happen in the United States, the most informed and wealthiest populace in the world. But just remember the words of Ronald Reagan, “Our freedom is only one generation away from extinction”. The next few years will tell us if this is so.

Harry Reid: Majority Nitwit

Who is this fellow Harry Reid and how did he get to be the Senate Democratic Majority Leader? I realize that Nevada has not exactly been a reservoir of great statesmen, but it is a beautiful State with great vistas and I love Las Vegas, spent a fun night in Ely once, and enjoyed a scenic drive to Carson City as well. I guess Mr. Reid had established a record with important people in his party to earn this position, since he was the Minority Leader prior to the last election when the Democrats took control of the Senate.

He looks like a shy but likeable gent until he stands before a camera and opens his mouth. He has a hesitant and insecure way of expressing himself, sort of like Speaker Pelosi, and most of the stuff that comes out is stupid and dumb. That’s why I was wondering how he got to this position. If anyone knows, please let me know. I always say to my friends that, “ I love when he and Speaker Pelosi get in front of the television cameras, because that’s the best thing for the Republican Party!”Let them talk, please.

In keeping with his reputation, Harry Reid made a ridiculous, callus, and desperate statement yesterday which illustrates that he really has trouble in pulling enough Democratic votes together for this misguided healthcare legislation we now have before the Senate. Reid equated the current Republican opposition to the bill as the same as the opposition to slavery and the civil rights legislation of the 60’s, when opposing legislators said we need to “slow-down” and discuss this drastic legislation further. You may recall that there was a filibuster of the 60’s Civil Rights Bill, however, Mr. Reid neglected to tell you that 80% of the senators participating in that filibuster were Democrats. I also seem to recall that the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery was made during a Republican administration. Nevertheless, the analogy of civil rights legislation and this healthcare bill is obviously ridiculous, out of context, and as I said, stupid!

Legislation that will impact one-sixth of this giant economy and result in hundreds of government regulations and mandates that affect every part of the lives of all our people, should not have a timetable for passage. This is not a football game. Also, the argument that the other side does not have an alternate plan is patently false, since I have heard it from Representatives, Eric Cantor, Mike Spence, Tom Ryan, and Senators John Thune, John McCain, Mitch McConnell and many more. The alternate plan is much cheaper, gets at the real reform need to cut costs, and retains the quality of healthcare while providing more competition. It does not throw out the baby with the bath water or cost anywhere near $2.5 trillion.

Why we need to rush this through in these economic times, no matter how damaging, and leave the mess it creates to future generations, is beyond me. The choice is between Obamacare and a better reform alternative, which Mr. Reid does not want to be heard.

Thank God, he will be on the unemployment lines in 2010. I’m rooting for you Nevada.

Global Warming Uncovered

This corner has previously written articles that address the “junk” science of global warming, the posts were on March 11th, June 11, and June 29th, in which I discussed some of the scientific facts to illustrate that labeling CO₂ as the culprit in climate change is a farce that has already swindled billions of dollars from the economies of Europe and the U.S., which now threatens to reach trillions should the cap and “tax” legislation ever succeed in the Senate. Thank God the recent revelations about how overzealous scientists have attempted to hide data and prevent the publication of conflicting opinions may have finally put the nail in this coffin.

This is the story of how a very weak and fragmented climate theory has turned into a political ideology that has become a virtual industry in itself, while those who oppose it are considered heretics and obstacles to “progress”. It is a story of how misguided scientists, the media, and politicians can take noble environmental research and turn it into a money machine for their own self interests at the expense of those of us who are too busy living our lives to get informed.

For centuries the climate has always changed, sometimes drastically, even when the level of CO₂ was but a fraction of what it is today. What you don’t hear is that the global temperature has risen a mere ½ a degree centigrade in the last century and there is no evidence that the human production of CO₂ has any relationship to global temperature. In fact, volcanoes produce more CO₂ than man does; and decaying vegetation and oceans emit almost all of the CO₂ on this planet. The theory that man-made emissions can impact this is ludicrous and arrogant. Particularly when we consider that CO₂ is a minor greenhouse gas which represents only 0.054% of the total, and therefore any human impact would be even far less than that. Water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gas.

Regardless of all this, just follow the money and you will understand why the media and politicians continue to propagate this myth. Since many of these so-called reputable scientists elect to suppress and provide bias “peer reviews” of articles that refute this theory, there must be many research grants, consulting fees, books, and articles that provide a good living for them.

With the uncovering of thousands of emails and files that illustrate how this secretive group of scientists has suppressed data, frozen open debate, and ignored freedom-of-information laws in order to protect their money tree, we now see the quality of the science we are dealing with. At least the discourse will now be more open and objective and more of you out there will see that this inconvenient truth is one gigantic fib.

The Dumbing Down of America

I hate to sound like a snob but as I wait for our President to make a decision about what he is going to do in Afghanistan concerning General McCrystal’s recommendation, I can’t help but think what got us into this ridiculous situation. I also thought that in my years as a CEO, if it took me four months to make a decision about a high priority issue and then announced to an awaiting constituency about issuing that decision after that amount of time, I would have been a laughing stock to the employees and the shareholders would probably have shown me the door. I guess in politics the bar is not set as high.

The question then came to me about how we put an individual into the most powerful job on this planet with virtually no experience in running anything and educated in the Saul Alinsky school for radicals. Recently, Professor Joseph Olsen of Hamline University School of Law, in St. Paul, Minnesota did an unusual analysis of some interesting facts concerning last November’s presidential election. Although Obama won by a convincing electoral vote margin, many of us thought that the margin would be greater given the Republican candidate, the bias press coverage, the enormous amount of money spent by Obama, and the economic developments just prior to the election. Consider these facts:

The number of States won by Democrats: 19, Republicans: 29
The square miles of land won by Democrats: 580,000, Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by Democrats: 127 million, Republicans: 143 million
Murder rates per 100k residents in counties won by Democrats: 13.2, Republicans: 2.1

Dr. Olson also added that “in the aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was the land owned by most of the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democratic territory encompassed those citizens living in low-income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare”.

Olson believes that the U.S. is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase in the evolution of democracy, with some 40% of the population already having reached the “government dependency” phase. Since the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is hell bent on amnesty and citizenship for 20 million illegal’s who will eventually vote, along with the lowering of the voting age, the educational level of the U.S. voting public will be similar to that of a Banana Republic. The fact that Obama was elected primarily by minorities and the youth vote with the popularity of a rock-star, are you surprised at what we are contending with today?

Ronald Reagan said that, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction”. It’s time to stop this train to extinction. In this country we do it in the voting booth.

America you better start getting serious about this before its too late.

Fort Hood - Outright Terrorism and Political Correctness

As I contemplate the events that occurred at Fort Hood, Texas the other day, I can’t help but believe this really was a terrorist act caused by political correctness run amuck even in the U.S. army. Although 13 people were murdered and 30 injured this could have been far worse, were it not for the brave acts of a few people. The density of unarmed people in a small space and the assumed secure surroundings existent at Fort Hood were a perfect scenario for an entrepreneurial terrorist like Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to carry out his dirty deed.

More facts will eventually emerge, particularly as people who came in contact with Hasan over the years are questioned and his computer files are inspected, however, one thing is certain in my mind; this was clearly a planned and calculated terrorist act of the entrepreneurial variety. Hasan was not a member of the “corporation”, Al Qaida, but in business for himself. This act was driven by his Muslim religious beliefs and it was executed in the name of Allah as he shouted “Allaha Akbar” the Arabic phrase for “God is Great!”. The frightening thing is that sentiments like this are cultivated in many mosques all over the U.S. Although the vast majority of people who practice the Islamic faith here are peaceful and law-abiding, there are pockets of people like Maj. Hasan who are capable of this type of terrorism and, in fact, we have stopped many these terrorist attempts with the help of law-abiding Muslims. However, the silence of the Muslim community in condemning these acts is deafening, this also is a result of political correctness in their own community.

The U.S. is extremely vulnerable to entrepreneurial terrorism; since our armed forces and intelligence community are in dire need of people who speak Arabic, who can act as counter-intelligence agents for us, and will integrate with the local population in efforts to stabilize political factions where our forces are deployed. The problem is that the forces of political correctness exacerbate this vulnerability as exemplified in the Hasan case. Hasan may have been provoked by harassment, but it now appears that his actions as a psychiatrist for army returnees and his vocal tirades against our military policies made him a lightning rod for this harassment. His training as psychiatrist should have been enough for him to realize the consequences of his behavior.

Yes, this may have been the act of a desperate man but most of the suicide bombers recruited by Al Qaida are desperate men and women with no future and caught up in a religious justification for their acts. Maj. Hasan had a future, an education, a profession, and a job, all paid for, compliments of the U.S. government and yet he chose this action in the name of Allah. Most Americans abhor this, yet political correctness prevents us from speaking out about this apparently unique Islamic concept.

Health Reform: Bad Assumptions versus Good Logic

I have been watching this "so-called" debate in health reform with interest and, as most of you know, this really has been a debate amongst Democrats only. The Republicans have been essentially squeezed out of the key meetings in the Senate except for Olympia Snow of Maine, since she seems to support this monstrosity of a bill. The specifics of the actual Senate bill are now being "worked out" behind closed doors between Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff from Chicago, and Harry Reid the Majority Leader of the Senate along with a couple of aides, who basically take notes of the wondrous utterings of these gigantic intellectuals who single handedly are going to tell us what we should now do with 1/6 of our economy. Does that send shivers down your spine?

As this goes on, the President is telling you that we now have a bill that represents the best ideas of the Congress and of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike. It is a "bi-partisan bill that will not add one dime to the deficit". If you really believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you or you can continue to read on in order to make your own judgment based on facts and history.

First, as a rational human being, does the idea of adding more than 20 million uninsured to the roles subsidized by $500 B in savings from cuts in Medicare fraud and benefits in addition to a 40% tax increase to private insurance companies, make you comfortable that the quality or availability of your health care will stay the same or even improve? If you said "yes" to this question then please stop reading this post because it appears that you have imbibed too much of the Kool-Aid.

Not only is the $827 B ten year cost of this bill a fantasy, but the bill is effective for only 7 years of the ten years. How is that for doctored math? Let's now look at the government's track record of estimating the costs of these health plans:

Government Cost Overruns - $B

Program	Year	Predicted Cost	Actual Cost
Medicare	1965	12	110
Medicare Hospital	1965	9	67
Medicaid Hospitization	1987	1	17
Medicare Home Care	1988	4	10
Schip	1997	5.4	6.8
Medicare Prescription Drug	2003	49	41

These overruns were recently published by the Wall Street Journal. Ironically, George Bush's prescription drug plan has actually underun predictions. How come we hear no kudos for Bush on this? The Congressional Office said that the primary cause of the success of the prescription drug bill was that "the pricing is better than anticipated, which is likely a reflection of the competition that's occurred in the private market". Wow! Look what happens when you let the private market operate instead of having politicians regulate what they think is warranted. I don't think Obama will admit he "inherited" something good from the Bush Administration, do you?

At this point I think you should let your logic dictate over what you're hearing from Washington and then decide whether this is reform or just putting your children and grandchildren further into hock.

Nordic Revenge

While you’re still basking in the glow of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, I thought a few comments were warranted. As you know, this corner has not been kind to our President but obviously he was not looking for this and his aides are actually mortified, since this raises world expectations that will obviously not be fulfilled, at least, if the first 9 months of his presidency is any indication of the future.

The Politics of Peace

Unlike some of the other Nobel prizes which actually are awarded for accomplishments, the Peace Prize has become a political comment by the Nobel Committee, which in recent years has been a cheap shot at the U.S. Since no one cares what the Nobel Committee says anyway, I wouldn’t get too upset about this. Norway is an ultra Socialist society where citizens give almost all of their money back to the government to take care of them for the rest of their lives. The economy goes nowhere, the suicide rate is off the radar screen, they are notorious for their prejudice about anything non-Scandinavian, and they rarely smile. So those of you who are irate about this, just relax and remember that Obama is part of a line of recent recipients, such as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Yassar Arafat, that never did anything for peace or worthwhile for that matter. If I were Obama, I’d consider this an insult!

The End of American Exceptionalism

Obama won this infamous award because he professes all that Norway extols: pacifism, green radicalism, socialism, high taxes, the distribution of wealth, big government, global disarmament, and mediocrity. Now that this administration wants us to “blend in” with the rest of the crooks and despots in this world who have an equal vote in the U.N. with the greatest nation in the history of the world, the Europeans, particularly the likes of Norway, are elated. Thus, Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize.



Potential versus Accomplishments

As a technically trained person, I always considered the Nobel Prize in the sciences as credible, but when it comes to literature, economics, and peace, the prize is generally awarded on how far left the recipient leans rather than real accomplishments. To Obama’s credit, his comments were appropriate considering his admission of his lack of accomplishments to date. However, he is scheduled to go to Oslo to accept the prize in December so he can make another speech apologizing for past U.S. transgressions and preach global disarmament and the new world of “multilateral diplomacy”. The period of American exceptionalism may be dormant for a while, at least the next three years, but we will rise again when a real leader emerges.

I was disappointed, I thought Michael Jackson might win the Peace Prize for his song, We are the World, We are the Children. What about Bono, what about Sean Penn, maybe Oliver Stone………?

Love at the Office

The recent admission by late night comedian, David Letterman, to numerous sexual encounters with his staff members and interns over the years, has caused some interesting dialogue that illustrates the changing trends in our values. Many people thought this was funny; in fact, the way Letterman related this to his audience it appeared that he was telling a joke. He also said that he was concerned that his admission might embarrass the women involved. Now, tell me that wasn’t a sexist remark! Of course, he wasn’t embarrassed at all. I never thought I’d see the day that a married man with a child, admitting to such an indiscretion on national TV would be applauded and laughed at.

Now, I’m not a moralist or a prude, but since I was born in a different era I may be considered “a little behind the times”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against love in the workplace, in fact, surveys show that 40% of us have been involved in romance with a co-worker. Most people don’t mind if it’s a peer relationship, however, when it’s between a boss and a subordinate and either one is married, it gets a negative reaction. It’s particularly egregious when the supervisor controls the promotions, salary, and career path of the subordinate. In many companies the involved parties are shown the door. In fact, some executive contracts have language to that effect.

It’s clear that in Letterman’s case, the affairs were well known by co-workers, they occurred when he was married, CBS was aware of it, but nothing was done, even though Letterman controlled the destiny of these people and they were considerably younger. In fact, it’s been revealed that he offered to pay for law school for one of them and then hire her as his attorney once she graduated.

I encountered such a situation as an executive when a manager who reported to me was caught in a comprising sexual situation by a cleaning woman when she unexpectedly arrived at his office. She reported it immediately to our Human Resources person, who was still in the building, and the act was verified. The manager was married for 30 years, had married children, and the female involved reported to him. She had been aggressively promoted and given generous salary treatment. I immediately took action by sending the female to another division and the manager was re-assigned and demoted. He eventually divorced his wife and married another workplace mate.

I was eventually thanked by many people in the organization who were aware of what was going on but were intimidated by the manager and his indiscretions and didn’t make me aware of it. I guess today my actions would be considered as somewhat of an “overkill”, but I think most of you over 50 believe I did the right thing. In the meantime, Letterman keeps using it in his monologue, the audience keeps laughing, and his ratings are sky-high.

I never did think Letterman was funny…now I know why.

France: The New Leader of the Free World

We are now beginning to see the fantasy foreign policy of President Obama. In fact, his performance at the recent annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly and his chairing of a ridiculous Security Council session on non-proliferation was particularly un-nerving. Do you really think that the permanent members of the Security Council, U.S., China, Russia, really want to get rid of nuclear weapons while North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan are busy building their stockpiles?

The fact that President Obama knew of Iran’s other previously undisclosed nuclear site and did not confront them at the UN session, was a clear error in judgment and a major disappointment to our allies. President Sarkosy of France and Gordon Brown of the U.K. were mortified that Obama waited until the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh to give a rather tempered rebuke of Iran while Messrs. Sarkosy and Brown made very strong statements and looked like the real leaders of the free world.

It seems that President Sarkosy has been frustrated for months about Obama’s reluctance to confront Iran, but was told by the Administration that it didn’t want to “spoil the image of success” for Obama’s debut at the UN and his formal speech calling for his “dream” of total world disarmament. In fact, Sarkosy’s speech to the Security Council included a section about Iran’s latest deception, but was scrubbed at the last minute.

Sarkosy’s remarks, after Obama’s rather muted scolding of Iran at the G-20, were telling and seemed to be directed at Obama and not Iran. “We are right to talk about the future, but the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises (Iran and North Korea). We live in the real world, not in a virtual one”. Wow, is this France talking? “I support America’s extended hand but what has this produced for the international community? It has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a member of the United Nations. What conclusions are we to draw?” Looks like Israel now has a more reliable friend.

On TV last night a credible reporter for a major Pittsburgh newspaper, said that aides of Sarkosy said to him that Sarkosy considers Obama naïve about foreign relations and is so egotistical that he doesn’t listen to those with more experience and just will do what he wants. This is shocking stuff coming from people at that level.

If you remember Obama’s opening line of his UN speech, he said “I know you have great expectations about me”. I guess he now thinks he is President of the whole world. A naïve President with a major ego is a dangerous combination. I never thought I’d see the day France would lead in confronting the bad guys for the free world while our President hides in his virtual world of disarmament.

Obama: Commander-in-Chump

The events of the past few weeks must put a scare into the public as recent terror plots of Al Qaeda cells in the U.S. were nipped in the bud while an urgent proposal by our Commander in Afghanistan goes unheeded. These terror plots remind us that we are at war with an enemy that will stop at nothing to kill Americans here or abroad. Meanwhile, our Commander-in-Chief acts as though a war doesn’t even exist. In fact, his Commanding General in Afghanistan admitted last night on television’s 60 Minutes that he has spoken to the President only once in the last 70 days! Does this sound like a President engaged in a war?

What Are the Priorities?

General Stanley McChrystal’s memo urging a troop build-up of an additional 30-40,000 was sent to the White House in late August. Here we are a month later and the President has enough time to make the rounds of every network (except FOX News and the Food Network channels) to push his healthcare reform package (a package he doesn’t even know exists at this point), talk about the White Sox’s chances to make the playoffs on the David Letterman Show, and today announced that he and his wife are flying to Copenhagen on Friday to plea for holding the 2016 Summer Olympics in Chicago instead of Rio. This must be pay-back for his Windy City cronies so they can make big bucks, particularly his real estate friends. Frankly, I think Rio is a much better site for such an event and there are other more deserving cities in the U.S. that can use the economic lift from an Olympic event.

What Really is the Strategy?

In the meantime, our military is in harm’s way while Mr.Obama decides if he now wants to change the strategy in Afghanistan from the one he just set in March. That strategy was one in which he said was “a stronger, smarter, more comprehensive strategy” which would build schools, hospitals, roads, and enterprise zones, and address issues of energy and trade. We have thus far seen none of this! Where are the agricultural specialists, educators, engineers and lawyers? He said he was directing Secretary of State Clinton to develop a diplomatic plan to run in tandem with McChrystal’s military plan. Have you seen that plan? In fact, our Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, made a plea to the White House for funding this civilian support last month only to be told it was “premature”. Does this sound familiar?

Governing By Proclamation

The President makes these proclamations implying that he now has the answers, but there are no plans to implement them or know whether they even can be implemented. Remember, let’s get out of Gitmo? Well, we are still there with no plan to get out. He recently proclaimed that the school year should now run through the summer. Apparently, we can’t get all the work done in the conventional school year because in the 21st century we now have more things to do. Boy, we have computers for kids, i-phones, Twitter, texting and still can’t get all the work done. Maybe he ought to first ask the teacher’s union why. Perhaps our teachers aren’t as efficient as they used to be.

Mr. Obama, I hope you can be more efficient, stop making proclamations, just stay at your desk for awhile and make a decision on this war, because saving the lives of our soldiers is more important than lowering yourself to run a UN Security Council meeting or run off to Denmark to make the case for a Chicago Olympics. You lose your sense of priorities when you don’t have a plan. That’s a cardinal rule in the business world and you’re obviously no businessman.

Obama's Endless Summer

August has been a horrible month for the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress. Not only have the poll ratings and public support deteriorated significantly, but town hall meetings and the President’s bungling of the healthcare message has capped a summer that exposed many things about this President that most of us feared; he can make a great speech but when it comes to running things and developing political strategy, he is what most of us thought…..a novice.

From Bungled Events

From the Louis Gates affair, where he actually illustrated racial bias (a trait that would get a white President impeached), to the resignation of his Green jobs Czar, Van Jones, a professed communist, anarchistic, white hater, and supporter of a cop killer, he has made the wrong move at every turn. All this while his foreign policy continues to languish and our Secretary of State is virtually absent. In fact, her husband pulls off the best stunt of the summer by going to North Korea at the request of the captors, in order to escort two irresponsible and reckless female employees of Al Gore back to the U.S. That must have really made us look great in the eyes of the world, particularly the Iranians.

To The Healthcare Fiasco

This President has already made 32 more speeches than his total number days in office, held more press conferences than his predecessor did in his whole first term, and we still don’t know where he stands on healthcare, except that he wants the “government (public) option” and will cut Medicare by about $500 Billion to help pay for it. Meanwhile, the people of this country want reform but not a drastic overhaul of the entire system. It’s time for the President to stop blaming Republicans or Fox News for the healthcare debacle and start looking at the left wing of his party which is scaring the moderate and conservative Democrats. Many of whom are up for election in 2010 and believe they will lose their jobs if the Congress passes legislation that most of us don’t want. It is clear from the polls that the American public does not want universal healthcare, in fact, the elderly are overwhelming against it, except in the black community, but then again anything this President does is ok with them.

And Now Another Speech

And now we wait for another inspirational speech that is going to set things straight. In my many years of following politics I have never heard any speech by any great orator change public opinion in one night. The mere fact that Obama needs another speech, after all the previous speeches, TV specials, and advertising that his giant political machine has given this topic, tells us that the speech is now a political necessity. It is clear that the healthcare reform he will eventually get will be far less expensive and more incremental than he wants. It is the economy that concerns us right now, not healthcare.

I know that most of you expect this kind of commentary from me since you know I’m not a fan of this presidency, however, I have never witnessed such a shortened honeymoon for a newly elected President, particularly coming off the mountaintop from which he ascended after the election. The ironic thing is that you would never know it, if the mainstream media was your only source of information.

Connecticut - On the Road to Oblivion

The great and beautiful State of Connecticut appears to be heading down the road with California, New York, and New Jersey. The road to oblivion: increased taxes, greater spending, increasing deficits, losing population, losing jobs, and disincentives to investors.

I lived in Westport, Connecticut for 4 years in the 70’s when the state had no income tax, balanced its budget every year, and became one of the richest states in the Union. Such was the case for 200 years until 1991 when Governor Lowell Weicker pushed the first ever personal income tax at 4.5%, saying it would remain flat thereafter. Thus started the era of excessive spending and pay raises for the unionized state government workers. Such is the case when a state gets more revenues, it starts spending on things it would never conceive of in the past.

Quickly, after the on-set of the income tax the state went to the top 10 in expenditures per capita. There has been a long and slow exodus of jobs, people, and businesses and Connecticut has generated no net new jobs in the past decade. During this time the nation added 22 million jobs, while right next door, Wall Street was booming. Over the last decade the state has lost population every year but one.

In addition, the state income tax was raised to 5.5% and now the Governor, Jodi Rell, has proposed a $1-billion+ income tax hike by raising the top rate to 6.5% for high income individuals in order to close the expected $8.5 billion deficit. History shows that when you have a heavy reliance for tax revenues on top income filers, tax collections will become very volatile and these swings will make governing very difficult.

The Governor also plans to eliminate the state’s death tax which has exacerbated the loss of wealthy seniors to states with no estate tax. This maybe a good idea but she also plans to use the money generated from the income tax increase to cut the sales tax, which is a bad idea. Again, history shows that when you cut the consumption tax but raise taxes on investment and small business, this is a formula for losing more jobs.

I think if the Governor just looked at what is going on next door to her in New York and New Jersey she would get some religion. Millionaires just evacuate when you focus on them and states like Florida, Texas, and Nevada benefit. Connecticut may not be as bad as its sister states yet, but like them, it certainly looks like it’s on the road to oblivion. At least California is beginning to wise up.

Robert Novak - A Brief Encounter with an Icon

By now you may have heard about the passing of the famous Washington columnist and reporter, Robert Novak, who died of brain cancer on August 18th at the age of 78. Novak covered the Washington beat for over 50 years starting with the AP, the Wall Street Journal, and his syndicated column “Inside Report” with Rowland Evans, which he continued to write long after Evans retired. Most of us know him from his television persona on CNN as a host and guest on many news shows such as “The Capital Gang” and “Crossfire” where he played the curmudgeon to his peers and was called “The Prince of Darkness”, which he said referred to his pessimism about civilization, not his conservatism.

I had the privilege of a brief encounter with Novak in Florida in February of 2008 just a few months before he was diagnosed with brain cancer. The Young American Foundation (YAF) was traveling to various cities on a promotional tour and, as a long time supporter, I was invited to the event. Bob Novak was traveling with the group as an after-dinner speaker about the coming presidential election and was promoting his last book, “The Prince of Darkness”, an autobiography about his 50 years in Washington. My wife had just suffered a heart attack, had triple bypass surgery, and was recuperating at home at the time and I was reluctant to leave her for the evening. However, she knew I loved Novak and urged me to attend. The meeting was held at the Ritz Carlton and following the afternoon session I asked Ron Robinson, the President of YAF, if Novak was around because I wanted to meet him and have him sign my copy of his book. Ron directed me to the patio where people were beginning to gather for the pre-dinner cocktails.

I spotted Novak standing with some young college students who were part of the YAF entourage. I immediately went over and introduced myself and asked if he would sign his book for me. He smiled graciously and signed it with a nice salutation. Thus began a most fascinating and memorable 30 minutes, in which we discussed his past and current experiences like friends who hadn’t seen each other for years. We had great chemistry and he focused on my questions, as I was mesmerized about his observations of several Presidents. There was no pretense or omnipotent preaching, just honest observation of first hand, uncensored interactions with Johnson, Carter, Ford, Clinton, Reagan,and Bush I & II. He had particular admiration for Reagan and Johnson, who hosted his wedding party because Novak’s wife was a secretary in Johnson’s White House. He had particular disdain for Carter, who he called the biggest liar of any President he covered. Needless to say, I was taken by his naturalness, his concern for my wife’s health, and his appreciation of my recognition of his accomplishments. He was a man comfortable in his own skin and at a time in life when interaction with your public was now more important than any hills to climb.

My admiration of Robert Novak stems from his obsession with the story and the facts rather than spreading his own ideology or opinion in his reports, a lesson that should be heeded by our modern day journalists. He had the unique ability to cultivate his sources and was always loyal to them. Although he was conservative in his views, he was not a partisan. Novak was hard on Republicans as well as Democrats and was skeptical about power and the intervention of big government in our lives.

Novak converted to Catholicism in 1998, so I expect he is continuing his column for Saint Peter, writing about the big stories in Heaven. We will miss his column here on Earth and also the prince of darkness, who was really a gentle and caring man.

Term Limits for Seniors or Politicians?

It’s clear that the healthcare bill that is currently before the House will require considerable savings in order to achieve the deficit neutral goal that President Obama promised when this process began. Even then, it now appears that a middle class tax increase will be required in order to supplement the significant tax revenue shortfall that is now apparent as a result of this severe recession. So the question is why do we need to junk our current healthcare system at a time when we clearly can’t afford it and there are also bi-partisan proposals presented which will reduce costs in the current system and maintain the quality of care we now have, cover those uninsured who want coverage and are qualified to receive it, without bankrupting the country. I guess Nancy Pelosi will have to answer that question.

The Real Objective Behind Healthcare
The real answer is that the Democratic Party is hell bent on single payer universal healthcare and eventually junking the Medicare system and this is Phase One of that effort. The initial focus is on seniors who represent one-fourth of Medicare costs in the final years of their life. Therefore, eliminating tests, procedures, and medications for seniors because they are no longer in their “productive” years will result in considerable savings according to some of Obama’s czars, who believe that an early exit for “non-productive” citizens will be beneficial for the economy. This philosophy has been discussed in the stimulus bill and further expanded upon in the healthcare bill and exposed in the Wall Street Journal article: http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/assaultonseniors.html

Seniors Are Assets Not Liabilities
Well, maybe someone should inform the current administration that these seniors are mostly responsible for the economic growth and accomplishments of this country to date and have already paid into the Medicare and Social Security system for all of those who have preceded them because the government has run a giant Ponzi scheme on the funds that have gone into these programs for the last 40-75 years.

Since all legislators have their own very generous government pension and healthcare benefits for life and can continue to work their 1-2 months/year in wheelchairs and walkers, since they have no term limits and people keep voting them in because their seniority provides earmarks and pork barrel legislation for their communities, I guess they don’t care about those of us who have mandatory retirement or get “terminated” because we’re “too old”.

Perhaps they should ask how much the currently “productive” people have learned from their predecessors, how much the youth of this country relies on and seeks the wisdom of their grandparents, and how many of the world’s population want to keep their mothers and fathers with them for as long as they can?

Doctors Not Government Should Decide
Sure, we know that many people have living wills and don’t want to be kept alive artificially, but most of us want to hold on as long as our quality of life is good and our families want us around. However, we’re not talking about terminal illness here; we are talking about government making Orwellian decisions about your right to available healthcare relative to someone who they conclude has more “productive” potential.

I think we should have term limits on politicians, not on seniors, and I think it is absolutely preposterous to have to write a column about this as a citizen of the wealthiest country that ever existed on this planet.

The Israel Policy - Naive or Just Plain Dumb

The good cop/bad cop policy that Biden and Obama are playing with regard to Israel appears to be a cynical attempt by Obama to placate the growing fears within the American Jewish community over his increasingly extreme pro-Arab bias in Middle East policy. How he commanded so much of the Jewish vote has always been an enigma, since his bias has always been apparent to me. I realize the liberal tendency of Jewish voters, but Obama’s stance on Israel will eventually cause him to lose that voting block in 2012 if he continues on this path.

Back in early July, Biden proclaimed on national TV that “Israel can determine for itself – it’s a sovereign nation – what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran or anybody else…..Whether we agree or not. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that is going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.”

This is a reversal from his statement in January 2008 that “Israel will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran.” Then Obama jumps in and says that he had not given Israel a “green light” to attack Iran. His language was stunning in that he implied that Israel needs his permission to ensure its survival as a nation. This is bizarre to say the least. It sends the impression to Arab states that we dictate Israeli foreign policy and that they are a stooge of the U.S. and do not control their own sovereignty. This damages our credibility worldwide.

It seems that Obama’s remark is an attempt to placate our enemies in the Mid-East and attempt to change our “image” and show our willingness to negotiate our differences. Most of us realize that this approach has been tried by other administrations since Carter. We have found that strength is the only thing that resonates with our Mid-East adversaries. Our experience with Libya, Iraq, and Afganistan illustrate this. It certainly is Obama’s option to revert to this approach again; however, he must show progress. Thus far, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, have spit in his face. Things appear to be better in Syria now but they, like Libya, don’t have many options and we look like the best one at this point.

I hope that this is not the ignorance of a “community organizer” playing on the world stage. Where is our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? Maybe we will soon see a Mid-East Czar, or is that George Mitchell or Richard Holbrook? At least they have a track record, compared with the bevy of czars we have now.

ObamaCare - A Travesty

We have been led to believe by the Obama administration that everybody wins with ObamaCare. We all will have equal right to quality healthcare, those who prefer their current plan will get to keep it, and all the currently uninsured will be covered, etc, etc., as the King says in “The King and I. Well, we have now learned that this is mostly, poppy-cock. The current plan on the table will have winners and losers and the only way to provide more care to more people and be deficit neutral is to have more losers.

Those of us with Medicare know about the shortfalls of government controlled healthcare. The government – not the doctors – determines the cost value for a particular procedure and they dictate the treatment protocols and how much the doctor can charge (or what they (Medicare) will pay), and how long a patient should remain in the hospital. Under ObamaCare, we will also have end-of-life counseling in case the government feels you’re too old to have open heart surgery, chemotherapy, or a hip replacement. “We think you should spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair because we’re trying to reduce medical costs and I have to meet my budget target on cost reduction this year”. Let’s be realistic that’s what you’re going to get with the current proposal.

In a recent New York Times/CBS poll (already, I’m sure your getting a little dubious), the pollsters concluded that most Americans are willing to pay higher taxes so that all can have health insurance and that the government could do a better job of holding down healthcare costs than the private sector. Since 10 percent of the population pays 55% of the taxes, I wonder how many of those polled actually pay taxes? It’s easy to be in favor of higher taxes when you don’t pay any.

The reality is that there will always be some people who receive less care than others under any healthcare system, depending on where you live, your social or income status, and how smart you are. Even under a free market, those who take from the system will get less care than those who pay for the system. Under Obama’s plan or that from the Democratic Congress, the government sets the standards that determines who gets care. Since most of the Obama’s czars are not accountable to anyone but him and not elected but appointed, do you want life and death decisions to be made by cronies, radicals, former criminals, and admitted communists? Do you want them making judgments on your health outcomes?

The administration and the Democrat controlled Congress have done their best to ram this legislation through before you have a chance to understand its ramifications. Their effort has failed, and now the summer recess provides the time for those legislators to get feedback from their constituency. The more we analyze this proposal the more their poll numbers will drop and the more we will realize that this is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever introduced in Congress. It is critical that we the people stop this travesty and run those legislators who support it, out of town.

The Louis Gates Affair - Black Paranoia or Discrimination?

By now we all know about the circumstances surrounding the incident between Louis Gates, Jr., a Harvard scholar and professor on race relations and the Cambridge, Mass. police department. The shocking part of this is our own President, acting with typical black paranoia before he has the facts, says that the police “acted stupidly in this incident by arresting a black middle-age man with a cane in his own house”. Now that the facts are in, we see that Professor Gates and even our President have acted like black stereotypes in an incident that had nothing to do with race.

It just appears that we have the case of a liberal, intellectual, and elitist African-American (the liberal label is an assumption- but given the geographical location we’d be hard pressed to find a conservative) who thought that he was being treated like a “common” black man by the police and because of his “status” became enraged as soon as the police arrived and immediately call the policeman a racist.

There is no doubt from the police reports and witnesses that Mr. Gates exacerbated the situation and became uncontrollable, shouting insults at the police officer and causing a significant disturbance and was arrested for that reason. I realize that the persecution and abuse of blacks by the police has been a blot on our society and causes great resentment by blacks. No doubt that racial profiling is a reality, but given the fact that 70-80% of our prisons are inhabited by minorities it is obvious that the police may act aggressively in certain situations and that law abiding or educated and professional blacks would be sensitive to the race issue, in situations involving a white policeman. However, most educated people, white or black, would normally act respectful to an officer who was doing his job in a situation where he thought a break-in was involved. Apparently, Mr. Gates thought he was intellectually “superior” to this white cop and instantly proceeded with an attitude.

Massachusetts is a state with a black Governor, Cambridge has a black mayor, officer Crowley had Hispanic and African-American partners, and we have a black President. It’s time for us to get beyond this issue, however, if educated blacks continue to use the race card in a situation where racial profiling was clearly not the case, this will never happen. Also, if our President shows his own racial bias before he even knows the facts, we surely won’t get beyond this and he will antagonize his white constituency. The incident now threatens to de-rail his popularity and even his legislative agenda.

Rushing to judgment ridicules his sincerity about changing this country with respect to race relations. It also makes one wonder about his credibility as he tries to push universal healthcare down the throat of a reluctant populace without even reading the legislation. This event adds credulence to the argument about his executive inexperience in running anything except for elective office.

Like the Cambridge Police Department spokesman said yesterday “the President called the wrong party stupid”.

Hillary Joins The Apology Tour

It looks like Hillary Clinton, who I thought was the only sensible one left in the Obama administration (along with Robert Gates of Defense), has succumbed to the 28 year-old social engineers who are the chief advisors to this President and write his glowing speeches. Ms. Clinton actually apologized to India yesterday for our ecological “mistakes” in growing this nation into the wealthiest and greatest nation on this planet. She then proceeded to plead for them to avoid these “mistakes” and slow down their efforts to improve the lot of their vast population for the sake of “global warming”.

She was basically apologizing for our Industrial Revolution and the economic boom during and after World War II which allowed us to defeat the Nazi and Nippon hoards and brought us out of the Great Depression. As a result we rebuilt Western Europe and Japan, won the Cold War and liberated Eastern Europe, and became the greatest economic machine in history. We may have made mistakes in the process, some related to ignorance, and some related to risk/reward decisions, but once we realized our mistakes we took actions to rectify them and pass legislation to protect our citizens and the environment. That’s more than you can say about the rest of the world.

India is one of our greatest Allies in that part of the world. A country with a strong and growing economy, a formidable army, a stable and democratic government, and a civil culture based on values built from a century of influence as a member of the former British Empire.

Is Ms. Clinton now asking them to slow down and start to evaluate the use of alternative energy sources? Wow! Does she expect them to look at wind and solar power and green gas emissions, when 2/3 of the country live in slum conditions and have no electricity? This logic is embarrassing and makes the U.S. look selfish and elitist. I don’t blame India for their retort saying that their carbon footprint is significantly less than the U.S. on a per capita basis. Well that’s right, given their GDP, poverty level, and vast population compared with the U.S. However, are we now expected to say that we will lower our carbon footprint to the average of the rest of the world? Well, that’s about what we are doing with the Waxman-Marley climate control bill.

This is just another example of the wrong tactic at the wrong time. The Democrats seem to have a propensity for this in their foreign policy decisions in recent administrations. Ms. Clinton follows in the footsteps of Brzezinski (under Carter), Warren Christopher and Madelyn Albright (under Clinton) as previous Secretary of States that weakened our status in the world and made policy that continues to plague us today.

China and India are not going to slow down their efforts to be among the major economies of the world and improve living standards for the bulk of their population and I don’t blame them. The idea of going around the world asking for forgiveness for polluting the planet, when we have dispensed much of our wealth to the rest of the world, contributed so much technology for the betterment of mankind, and are the most generous nation in recordable history, is an embarrassment to every hard working citizen in our nation.

I am shocked and dismayed that someone as intelligent as Ms. Clinton would think it appropriate to engage in such flawed logic. Portraying ourselves as a regretful, humbled, apologetic nation empowers our enemies and disappoints our allies. Needless to say, it demoralizes our citizens who are rightfully proud of our heritage and our accomplishments. President Reagan, where is that “shining city on the hill”?

The Duping of America - A National Disgrace

Our history is replete with Presidents who caught the imagination of America’s voting public and were swept into office promising change and reform. Sometimes this change was driven by world events and sometimes by the fact it was time for the other party to have its chance with a new approach. Some of these elections resulted in positive change, some negative. In most cases, they caused a discernable alteration in the course of history.

The election of Andrew Jackson was a move away from legislative dominance to a stronger executive role, James Polk, the expansion of our manifest destiny, Lincoln, a test of our values as a nation, T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson, the move towards modern progressivism and away from individual rights, FDR, a move to the welfare state and big government, Kennedy, a promising change to a new generation, Carter, a reform of Washington politics, Reagan, a return to our principles and strength as a world power, and Obama, a new approach to transparency in government, “fairness” in the distribution of wealth, and a less arrogant America.

Although I sometimes voted for the “losers”, I was always assured that the American public would choose the right man at the right time because our collective wisdom as a nation had always been infallible. I must say that for the first time, I am very worried.

We have elected a man with no track record or notable achievements, one who was elected on the shear “cult of personality” sale and the fact that we were enamored that he is an African-American and illustrates the classic story of what is possible in America. In a short six months we have found that the weakness the main street media says is apparent in Sarah Palin as a presidential candidate is clearly present in Barack Obama, except unlike Palin, he is able to create an image of authority, confidence, and swagger because of his gender and his appeal to liberal women, the youth, and minorities.

Without a teleprompter, he stutters and stammers his way through interviews often with incorrect and uniformed views, he doesn’t listen to the opposition nor care what they say because he is steeped in the tradition of the liberal establishment who are his friends and associates throughout his rather narrow career experience. His grasp of international relations is appalling and naïve, at best. His socialistic view of the role of government is creating severe problems for future generations and world confidence in our currency and our economy.

With voter overreaction sweeping Democrats into Congress with one-party super majority control, we are now witnessing a reckless legislative agenda threatening to impose a European-style welfare state, in a matter of weeks, against an arbitrary deadline, and with little analysis. This agenda will result in a huge tax burden that will trickle down to the middle class and rival the taxes that currently exist in Denmark and Sweden, the standard bearers of the welfare state, and will be higher than even Canada and France. Current estimates from credible independent economic authorities and overseers of government spending, show that the U.S. average income tax will reach 52% of your income and as high as 57% for residents of NY, NJ, California, Oregon, and Hawaii if this legislation is enacted.

This is a man who campaigned as a centrist, than proceeded to break most of his promises, and is now governing as an extreme or even radical liberal. It looks like “Joe the Plumber” was one of the few who didn’t get duped. The only question is will we be duped again in 2012?

Healthcare - A Birthright?

When you survey the American public, some 80% say they are happy with their health insurance. Yet our President says the system is broke and needs to be fixed and the best way to do this is for the government to run it and for everyone to have health insurance whether they want it or not. This will cost you and me trillions of dollars and most likely significantly reduce the quality of care we currently get, be fraught with fraud and bureaucratic inefficiency, and eventually be bankrupt in a few decades just like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other government run programs since President Roosevelt set us on this idiotic path toward big government.

The premise for this move to government controlled healthcare is the fact that there are some 30-40 million uninsured people in the U.S. However, we never break it down into what makes up this number. How many are illegal immigrants, how many can’t afford it or are chronically unemployed, how many just don’t want it because they are rich, or just think they are young and very healthy, how many are children and why won’t their parents get them covered? Is health insurance a birthright, like equality and freedom, and the pursuit of happiness which is guaranteed in our Constitution?

No one cares if you don’t buy life insurance or auto insurance or home insurance (only your lender). Also, I can’t figure out why everyone must have the same quality of healthcare. Don’t wealthier people have higher quality cars and houses, better food, better education, take better care of themselves?” As a matter of fact, in Socialist and Communist countries, the people in the government are usually the wealthiest and have better services, even though they tout equality for the masses.

What really is healthcare? The statistics say that 80% of the health costs are due to lifestyle choices which can result in obesity, diabetes, heart and cardiovascular disease, and some cancers. Why should those of us who choose to make healthier choices, pay for the health insurance of those who don’t? Obviously, most Americans are willing to pay for health insurance to protect themselves from involuntary or unwanted occurrences, but should we be required to protect others from health risks due to alcoholism, smoking, depression, or even erectile dysfunction? Why can’t we have a system of choice and have the option to select the health coverage we want in order to have premiums we can afford and forgo coverage for trivial or unnecessary procedures? Wouldn’t this be better and cheaper than guaranteeing the same healthcare for everyone?

Let’s face it people, everyone in this country can get professional healthcare whether they have insurance or not. Sure the system should be improved but we don’t have to throw it away and start all over because some people don’t have insurance. Maybe if we thought about things for awhile and studied the problem with qualified and non-political experts, we would come up with something that’s viable and less costly.

We have already seen what rushing into TARP, a new budget, and the stimulus package has done to this economy.

Climate Change Facts - Obama Lies

You must know by now that the Cap & Trade legislation that I wrote about in a previous posting (3/11/09) has passed the House of Representatives by a slim seven vote margin. The fact that the Democrats, who command such a large margin, needed seven Republicans to get this through should be ample evidence to you that this is bad legislation and nothing more than the largest tax increase to the American public in history. It will prolong this recession, result in the loss of millions of jobs in the petroleum or petroleum-related industries and massive increases in the cost of energy.

All of this is predicated on a lie that has been perpetrated on the America public about the role of greenhouse gas (CO2) on the world’s climate. I’m old enough to remember a similar lie under a similar type of Administration in the 70’s (Jimmy Carter’s), at that time the planet was cooling and fossil fuels were the likely culprit and we all would freeze to death unless we developed alternative energy sources. Also, we were running out of oil reserves and government needed to intervene with massive taxpayer subsidies for other uneconomic forms of energy because we couldn’t leave it to the markets. Now, 35 years later, we’re running out of time, the planet is now getting hotter, people are to blame, and we are doomed if we don’t stop using fossil fuels.

Well, over the past 40 years we have consumed more oil than the reserves we had in 1970 and the proven oil reserves have nearly doubled from that period. The 30 year cooling trend ended in the late 70’s and has been replaced by a 20-year warming trend that peaked in 1998 and is now actually declining, regardless of what Al Gore says. The average global temperature has increased by about one degree per century since the end of the Little Ice Age 250 years ago and CO2 levels have increased by a mere 100 parts per million (ppm). It is a trace gas comprising just 4 out of every 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere. Without CO2 in the atmosphere there would be no life on this planet! The sun and water vapor are by far the biggest drivers of our climate and if CO2 is now called a “pollutant”, then we ought to call water vapor a “pollutant” also. This conclusion is preposterous.

If we do the math we also come to the conclusion that this legislation is not credible. Mr. Obama’s goal is “80 by 50” – an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. Worldwide demand for energy will grow by 30-50% over the next 20 years and fossil fuels will supply about 85% of that demand, no matter what President Obama does. In fact, taken together, wind and solar power account for just one-sixth of 1% of U.S. energy usage; even though we have pumped in roughly $20 billion in taxpayer subsidies in the past 30 years. President Obama proposes to double wind and solar consumption by the end of his first term. It actually doubled over the last 3 years of the Bush Administration and if he doubles it again, it will grow from 1/6 of 1% to 1/3 of 1% of the total energy usage. That assumes the U.S. consumption is flat over the period which is not likely.

Thank you Mr. President! You have set an unrealistic goal; it will cost consumers $2 trillion or more over the next decade and who knows how much by 2050. In addition, you are asking the American people to reduce their carbon footprint from about 20 tons per person per year, to about 2 tons per person per year in 2050. The last time our footprint was that low John Smith was courting Pocahontas!

Let’s hope you only hang around in this job till 2012.

Global Warming and Bad Science

It’s been awhile since my last post as I moved to my northern residence for the summer months. Like millions of others I am seeking a buyer so that I can live permanently in southwest Florida. During this time I have had a chance to view the rather dynamic political scene, Obama’s trip to the mid-East and Europe, continuing negative developments in the economy, and the slowly eroding public approval of the President’s policies, although he personally retains high popularity ratings.

In the coming months we will have a lot to say about this administration’s attempt to pass national healthcare legislation, a Cap and Trade environmental tax, and at the same time run our auto industry; all this with the back drop of rising unemployment, a failed stimulus program, and rising deficits. I believe we would have a lot more unrest right now had the stock market not recovered all of its 2009 losses at this point.

To make matters worse, I read about another ridiculous global warming report issued by the global Humanitarian Forum, which is based in Geneva, and headed by former U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan. The report warns that unless countries agree to “the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated” at a meeting this year in Copenhagen, droughts and floods and natural disasters induced by climate change will kill 315,000 each year and cost $125 billion and it gets worse into the future. Actually, these numbers are not very ominous when one considers that malaria and AIDS kill an estimated 3 million people a year. It would seem that a focused worldwide effort using known technology to eradicate those dread diseases, would be far more cost-effective than trying to affect a multi-trillion dollar program to change the climate, which is controlled by God or other natural phenomena (depending on your religious beliefs).

The real questionable credibility of this report is its methodology, which assumes that global warming is the direct cause of climate change when no credible evidence exists other than theories and the political rhetoric of overzealous environmentalists. There is absolutely no evidence that can point to a relationship of greenhouse gas emissions and disasters. This report actually attributes Hurricane Katrina and suggests that the fighting in Somalia are products of climate change. Since the effects of climate change are long-term, it is disingenuous to attribute these recent events to change caused by global warming.

We have gotten to the point where claims such as those made in this report need to be scrutinized more carefully by credible scientists and their assessment needs to be published in the news media or otherwise we will continue to be flooded with this kind of self-serving phony science that dresses itself up when promoted by political advocates who see the money train of the green movement.

I’m afraid the Obama administration is falling into that trap as we continue to sit on the sidelines with known technology while we claim the goal of energy independence.

Torture - What Is It and Is It Ever Justified?

The controversy that has abounded recently about the use of waterboarding as an “enhanced interrogation technique” for terrorist detainees is rather superfluous. Torture is different to different people, depending on your frame of reference or the “relative” circumstances. Maybe, you’re like the person who said about pornography, “I can’t describe it, but I know it when I see it”. Is that the way we see torture?

Torture is technically defined as something that causes intense suffering and/or pain particularly in the context of punishment or coercion. The legal difference between torture and other forms of ill treatment lies in the level of severity of pain or suffering imposed. In addition, torture requires the existence of a specific purpose behind the act, such as to obtain information. Methods of torture can be both physical and/or psychological and can have lasting effects.

It is really difficult to get your arms around the legal definition since courts in different countries don’t agree. For example, the European Convention of Human Rights (HCHR) definition, as interpreted by the Court of Strasbourg, considers torture as just inhuman and degrading treatment, which can mean no invasive action at all. That means, for example, all the detainees are being tortured because they are being held without trial. What about what the U.S. government did to Japanese citizens during WWII, or what police do to criminals as a matter of routine?

I think we make the mistake of getting bogged down in the definition, which is rather illusive, but should speak to the events or conditions that cause the use of torture and then make moral judgment from that.

John Locke, the 17th century English philosopher who greatly influenced our founders and is the source of our belief in the rule of law and the priority of legislative power, also believed there were situations where the rule of law did not apply. These are circumstances where the executive branch has the “power to act according to discretion, for the public good with prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it”. Remember when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in 1861 when Confederate sympathizers in Maryland burned bridges and attacked federal troops. The Supreme Court ruled that only Congress could do this and ordered the release of the criminals. Lincoln disobeyed the order, saying that the executive must sometimes do things it would not do in ordinary times. Does this change how you view Lincoln or his values?

I would say that 9/11 was extraordinary, even more so than the attack on Pearl Harbor. The question is: Was the nation in danger on 9/11? Was the President justified to imprison the terrorists in Guantanamo? Were the enhanced interrogations justified? Were they useful in protecting our country and its citizens?

Our beliefs and values are such that nothing stands in the way of protecting our freedom and the safety of our people. If the world thinks less of us because we waterboarded 3 high level terrorists in the process, so be it. Let’s not dress this issue up in some righteous quest to save our reputation in the world. If you ask me, doing less to protect our freedom and the lives of our citizens would actually harm our status on the world stage, give comfort to our enemies, and send the wrong message to our friends and allies.

California, Here I Go!

That’s a take-off on a song that Al Jolson made famous in the 20’s called “California, Here I Come”. I was not around at that time but we’ve come a long way from then. So long in fact, that it now looks like we will be replaying that song in reverse. As I write this, Californians will be voting on six tax initiatives aimed at saving the State from utter bankruptcy.

It now appears that a reckoning may be here for the liberal tax and spend governance that has exemplified this State for many years. I predict that the voters, weary from this perennial gouging by public unions and special interests, will reject most of these initiatives to take more of their money. I hope this rejection will be the wake-up call needed to motivate real tax reform. Otherwise, the federal government will have another bailout on its hands, for surely California is too big to fail! It also poses an interesting question the Constitution never anticipated, “How does Washington take over a State?”

These are interesting times for many States that are now facing nearly a $100B budget deficit this year. Their “soak the rich” policies have created a mass exodus that leaves a vacuum of depleted jobs and a serious brain drain of entrepreneurs and small business. It illustrates that because people, capital, and businesses are mobile they will generally go to more tax-friendly locations when given the choice, particularly in these times.

The Great Tax Myth

The notion that increasing State taxes on the rich (>$200/yr.) provides more services, better schools, and improved infrastructure which in-turn attracts people and businesses is an utter myth. In fact, the opposite is true. The Wall Street Journal recently reported data from Richard Vedder of Ohio University which showed that from 1998-2007 more than 1,100 people a day moved from the highest income tax States such as California, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio and relocated mainly to nine tax haven States like Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Texas. Also, these no-income tax States created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth.

Take for example, New Jersey, a State where I lived from the age of 19-27. In the early 60’s the State had no income tax and no sales tax. It ran budget surpluses and attracted a variety of industries. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation, yet it generates continuous deficits and its schools rank among the worst. We have seen similar trends over the years in California, where teacher’s unions have negotiated the highest salaries for classroom teachers, yet their schools have the second lowest test scores in the nation.

Let’s hope that politicians look at the Texas model which still has no State income tax and created more jobs in 2008 than all other 49 combined. It’s the economy, stupid, that generates revenues for services and growth, not the tax rate.

Good luck California, you’re beautiful but I don’t like your personality!

GM's Bankruptcy - More of the Unfairness Doctrine

Developments in the bankruptcy negotiations for Chrysler and GM are excellent examples of this administration’s definition of the fairness doctrine, as they see it. It all depends on whose shoes you’re wearing. In my last post, the Chrysler bankruptcy showed how the secured lenders got swindled out of their contractual rights under bankruptcy law by government intervention. The GM bankruptcy illustrates the bias treatment of unsecured creditors due to government edict. Both these events violate the basic rules of a free market and the rule of law, which are the basic precepts of our founding fathers and our democracy.

In a conventional Chapter 11 bankruptcy, unsecured creditors are all in the same position and are usually treated by the court in a similar way, depending on their risk level and their importance to the company’s survival. In the GM case, there are three unsecured creditors in question, the bondholders (pension funds, hedge funds, investors) who bought these bonds from brokers, the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) who are owed money by GM as a result of the retiree health benefit trust set up by the company, and the U.S. Treasury who recently shelled out money in an effort to keep GM out of bankruptcy.

The bondholders hold the greatest debt at $27.2B, the union is next with $20B, followed by the U.S. Treasury with $16.2B. The government imposed solution is for the bondholders to get 10% of the ownership from converting their note to equity. That’s less than five cents on the dollar. The U.S. Treasury gets 50% of the stock and $8.1B in debt, as much as 87 cents per dollar, and the union gets 40% of the stock which covers one-half of their note and $10B more in cash over time. That’s worth approximately 76 cents on the dollar. The government and the UAW will own 90% and manage GM. How’s that for fairness? It looks like the private sector comes up short again when the government calls the shots and the guy with the largest claim gets short- changed in a rather disproportionate way.

Tell me, do you think that GM will ever get private investment capital in the future? Would private money readily come to TARP banks that are now being run by Treasury? When politics start to control business decisions, profits become less important. Witness the stagnation of business growth in the Socialist countries of the world. When growth slows the only option a Socialist government has is higher taxes. I’m afraid the cat’s out of the bag unless private interests go to the courts to block these two unfair and unjust bankruptcy charades. We better start standing up about this, because it’s our money that’s at stake. You can’t keep making something from nothing.

Chrysler Bankruptcy - Saved by Fiat ?

We are now witnessing one of the most outlandish violations of business ethics in history, compliments of your U.S. government on the road to Socialism. Can you believe that our President has proclaimed that Chrysler now has a new lease on life because it’s going to be managed by Fiat? A company that makes some of the worst cars on the planet! In addition, the largest shareholder in this new company (55%) is going to be the United Auto Workers, who have single handedly caused this bankruptcy.

Fiat would actually take a 20% stake, plus warrant options, for nothing but an exchange of “know-how” – no cash, not one dollar! Fiat’s warrants will give it the opportunity to increase its ownership (equity) by up to 15 more percentage points, if it introduces efficient engines in the U.S. and rolls out a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon. The irony is that Chrysler already has this “know-how” today, but nobody wants to buy the car.

Here’s another joke. To make this deal happen, the U.S. Treasury (you and me) will contribute $3.3 billion to the plan: $2.0 billion to pay off Chrysler’s senior secured lenders at 33 cents on the dollar (wonder why they’re hacked off), and the rest of the money will be used to pay the company’s bills during the bankruptcy. The government also says that it is willing to “pitch-in” another $4.76 billion more in order to keep Chrysler running for several years. That’s on top of the $4.0 billion that the government lent Chrysler previously, a debt that will now be forgiven as part of this arrangement. With a deal like this, why do we need Fiat? Britney Spears could run this company pretty easily and continue her singing career as well!

Oh yes, what did the UAW give up to make this all happen? Well, they gave up part of their retiree health care fund which was owed $10.6 billion by Chrysler; instead they will only get $4.6 billion paid back with interest. Someone should tell them that most of us get Medicare when we retire, but of course the UAW can’t settle for that. Also, they gave up a cost-of living allowance, a Christmas bonus, two paid holidays, and they will forego vision and dental care benefits. What a pity; such a sacrifice. Maybe someone should also tell them that many workers are taking pay cuts today, but I guess that would be too much to ask. So, since the UAW has given up so much, let’s give them 55% of the company! Who negotiated this deal for the government, Barney Frank or Chris Dodd?

To top off this travesty, President Obama had a press conference to criticize the secured lenders who, according to bankruptcy law, have the contractual right to be paid off first on the $6.9 billion of secured debt they hold, but I guess Mr. Obama just rewrites the law as he goes along. Those “greedy vultures” who lent that money to Chrysler in good faith should be happy with 33 cents on the dollar. He ought to know, he won the election.

Confessions of a Reluctant Blogger

Writing a blog in these times is a rather unrewarding dilemma. There are so many things that provide grist for the mill, but in turn, so many outrageous happenings that one must be very selective so as not to waste time on senseless trivia. As a person trained in the sciences and used to dealing in facts and informed theory, it’s frustrating to be bombarded with biased media, politically leaning network commentary, and raging TV pundits that deal in innuendo and speculation instead of factual and informed debate.

The moniker of this blog is “Economic Conservatism” and if you have read my posts, I obviously have conservative political leanings, but I am not a practicing economist. However, I have tried to comment on a range of topics, other than politics and economics. I have attempted to base my comments on factual information not solely my political orientation. I don’t want this blog to be just another overly zealous right-wing “rag” (there are plenty on both sides) but I certainly intend to defend traditional values, prudent fiscal policies, a strong defense, limited government, and free markets. If you have spent some time in this corner, you can tell I do not support government intervention in the private sector or my life, nor do I believe in the so-called progressive agenda and secular views of the left wing of the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, it appears to me that we now have a President and a Congress that is controlled by this wing of the Democratic Party and I am quite concerned about “change we can’t believe in”. We now have a President that controls the major banks in this country, can fire the CEO of the largest domestic auto manufacturer, can tell GM what cars they will make, makes a pact with one of our largest companies (GE) to push his “green” agenda at great expense to the U.S. taxpayers, and is planning the largest re-distribution of wealth in the history of this country regardless of the fiscal damage to future generations. I find it very difficult to maintain a balanced view when I am fearful for the future of this country under one party control. History has taught us the tragic lessons from this kind of autocratic behavior and socialist trends.

I intend to address these issues that have befallen us from the policies in the first 100 days of this current Administration. I want to give President Obama every chance to succeed in bettering the policies of the past and accelerating our recovery from this recession, however, he must be accountable for his actions and the American electorate will give him a report card in the 2010 mid-term election.

Mr. Obama sounded like a centrist as a candidate, but governs like a left wing ideologue, and has broken most of his promises to the electorate in his first 100 days. His popularity has been adversely impacted and the moderates in his own party are beginning to break ranks. He said he hardly knew about the “tea parties” that have erupted in recent months and his followers have dismissed them as racially motivated and from “rednecks” who don’t want to pay their taxes. Mr. Obama is playing with dynamite if he believes that these demonstrations are solely about taxes. If he doesn’t listen, he is going to be in for a big surprise come 2012.

I am reluctant to sound so negative about this new President and I solicit comments from some sensible Democrats out there that have facts to present that will allay my fears. However, if you’re a left wing zealot, stay away.

Can You Believe The Polls?

The other day I was watching MSNBC, the Obama network, and they reported on a New York Times/CBS News poll on President Obama’s ratings with the “public”. Given the results of the poll and when combined with the public response to the Obama tax plan, the rather dubious bills coming out of the Democratic Congress, the tea parties that are cropping up all over the country protesting the Obama tax plan, I was an immediate skeptic.

The poll results showed a rather unexplainable exuberance from the American people for Obama and is a vivid example of the media love affair with him, particularly NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and the New York Times. The poll showed that Obama’s approval rating hit a new high of 66% up from 64% the previous month. Is this significant; and was the press release from CBS or the Obama campaign? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.

According to former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell (who is no longer popular with his party) and a credible poll expert, “there is a problem with the way this poll was conducted”. Caddell says that the poll showed an extreme Democratic edge on party preference of 16 points. “No other poll has such an extreme partisan gap. It appears that the NY Times and CBS News manipulated the numbers until they came up with the desired results. In effect, they reduced the Republicans in the sample by 13% and increased the Democrats by 12% while the Independent voters were only changed by 2%”.

I also bet that you didn’t know that a Pew Research Poll was conducted just before the Times/CBS poll. It showed the new President in a different light. It stated that their poll showed “Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any President in four decades”. Did you read about that poll in the newspapers or did you hear about that on prime news and MSNBC?

I’m not saying that polls are not indicative of public opinion; however, I am saying that the way questions are phrased and selection of the demographic base, has a significant effect on the results. It appears to me that the Obama people and certain news outlets are very good at getting the result they want, in fact, they have even mastered it better than Bill Clinton’s people who were very good at it. Remember Begala and Carvelle?

I think that pollsters like Gallup, Zagby, Rasmussen, are credible and usually objective. However, when polls are sponsored by newspapers, TV networks, and politically leaning organizations, be careful of drawing conclusions. Obama is personally very popular, most newly elected Presidents are, but the media love affair with him is very evident and not necessarily constructive for the country. Our free media has for decades been a key element in providing objective analysis for the masses and the voice of the people in our democratic society. When it becomes a tool of the government, we become no different from the worse dictators or tolitarian state.

The Estate Tax - Will It Ever Go Away?

If you were planning on dying next year in order to avoid the estate tax, forget it. Buried deep in President Obama’s new budget proposal to Congress in footnote 1 on page 127 is a note which reads, “The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameter”. So instead of falling to zero next year as scheduled under current law, that tax will remain at 45% with an exemption level of $3.5 million (or $7 million for a couple). In essence, this is a 100% increase in the estate tax next year from current law , even though President Obama’s chief economic advisor, Larry Summers, empathic when commenting on the proposed budget said, “Let’s be very clear: There are no, no tax increases this year. There are no, no tax increases next year”. Oh yes, there are Larry. The President’s budget calls for the largest increase in the death tax in U.S. history!

Obviously, the intent was that the death tax would go to zero in the tenth year of Bush’s first tax cut in 2001, and the political likelihood was that it would never return. The election of Barrack Obama eliminated that expectation. It doesn’t matter that the revenue generated by this tax is relatively insignificant or that most of the money in an estate is already taxed when it was earned, it’s all about the liberal ideology that believes taxing the wealthy 2% of American families that pay this tax is only “fair” because they are “rich” and we want to show our constituency that we are for “working” Americans.

The truth is that this tax is a farce and totally “unfair” because it is double taxation and ignores the fact that the longevity of most small businesses is motivated by the ability to pass on wealth to the next generation. This regressive tax makes it preferable to sell or liquidate your business rather than pass it on to your heirs who can’t afford to pay the tax and keep it going.

In fact, a recent study by one, Larry Summers, shows that between 41-66% of capital stock was transferred either by bequests at death or through trusts and lifetime gifts. Therefore, a higher the estate tax lessens the incentive to reinvest in family businesses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that eliminating the death tax would increase small business investment by $1.6 trillion. This additional investment would create 1.5 million new jobs. That’s half the jobs President Obama said he hopes to gain from his $787 billion stimulus bill. It looks like we could have saved a lot of taxpayers’ money by just eliminating this most despised and unfair of all federal taxes.

President Obama, when are you going to stop being an ideologue and start using your common sense?

Caretaker For a Great American Tradition

Many of you who have read my brief bio, know that I was employed by Exxon Corporation, now ExxonMobil, for 28 of my 45 years in business. As I watch their commercials on television today and see the many capable employees they profile to discuss their work in the important technical areas to conserve energy, develop alternative fuels, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I realize how lucky I was to be one of the caretakers of this great company for the period 1960-1988 and what great talent they continue to develop to sustain their important role in our economy.

This year is Exxon’s 127th year in business and they continue to be the biggest and most profitable corporate entity in this great country, even after they were broken up by the government in 1911. In addition, they continue to provide dividends and stock appreciation for their shareholders and are a cornerstone investment for many annuities and retirement funds of middle class America. Exxon has been through the great Depression when demand and prices for their products fell for more than 10 years, tariff wars triggered by the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 which caused the collapse of international trade, nationalization of its assets by dictators and rogue countries in Latin America, the Mid-East, and Russia, the strain of the great wars where their properties and ships were destroyed (they lost 60 tankers during WWII ) and they still delivered the energy our nation needed.

Yes, they had a few oil spills, particularly Valdez in Alaska, which gave them bad publicity but nobody remembers that they paid more than $8 billion dollars to clean up the spill and restore the area and kept many fishermen with fat wallets for many years. Needless to say, they are still the brunt of politicians who think they make too much money, even though their margins are much lower that most of the Silicon Valley, pharmaceuticals and many other companies. They can deliver gasoline at the pump in the U.S. for $1.00/gal (ex-taxes), cheaper than most other places in the world and yet continue to be vilified in the press and Washington.

Exxon has persevered these 127 years through economic cycles and world wars, experienced vast changes in the political landscape, advanced and adapted to major technological developments, brought important products to the industrialized world, and achieved economic success through honesty, discipline, creativity, and innovation and never ASKED ANYONE FOR A BAILOUT! You can bet that President Obama will never have the opportunity to fire Exxon’s CEO.

Now you know why I am so proud of having a small part as a temporary caretaker of a great American enterprise.

"Old Hickory" - A Model of Presidential Toughness

I must say that Jon Meacham’s book on our 7th President, Andrew Jackson, “American Lion” (Random House)www.amazon.com was a mixed bag. While it failed to give an informative perspective on the history of this era, it was an excellent look at the intimates, associates, and enemies of Jackson throughout his Presidency. This was made possible by the acquisition of papers and letters in recent years from descendants of the people involved during this period.

Jackson was a powerful and transformational figure. He held a position with the public that was similar to our first military hero, George Washington; however, Jackson was a political populist. Many of our most notable Presidents used him as a model because he defined the role of his office, relative to Congress, in a way never before demonstrated by his predecessors. Previously, the focal point was the Capital and the White House was just an arm of the Congress. Jackson changed this and it never has been the same again.

The hero of the battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812, “Old Hickory” had many political enemies, particularly from abolitionists in the North and many states rights “nullifiers” in the deep South, particularly in South Carolina. Although this was some 30 years prior to the Civil War, the seeds were sown during this period. Jackson’s rather inconsistent view of equal rights is hard to rationalize based on his insensitive treatment of the American Indian and his cavalier attitude towards slavery. It is a vivid illustration of how the cultural mores of the day could dictate evil behavior in well meaning and principled individuals.

Jackson was orphaned at a very early age and lost his brother as a young adult. He never had children and his wife died during the period between his election to the Presidency and his inauguration. This is amazing when you think of the pressures on him at the time. His niece, her husband, and their children became his family and they supported his social responsibilities during his Administration. His rise above these setbacks is a testimony to his perservance and toughness and his strong spiritual make-up.

His arch enemies in the Senate were strong and elegant speakers, like John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay, giants in their own right. Some of the rhetoric in the speeches and documents revealed in this book would make the partisanship and personal attacks of today seem like child’s play. In fact, the Senate's censure of Jackson for his unilateral decision to effectively destroy the Bank of the United States and move all deposits to State Banks, was unprecedented at the time and illustrated a new more powerful role for the executive branch. This was later expunged in a hotly contested Senate vote late in his second term in a magnanimous gesture of farewell.

Jackson left many problems behind and was followed by some mediocre Presidents, particularly his groomed successor, Martin Van Buren. However, his strong leadership abilities, communication skills, and military exploits made him very popular with the people which really riled his adversaries. He certainly deserves a place as one of our most colorful and near-great presidents.

Nuclear Waste: An Imagined Problem

I read an article the other day by William Tucker, author of the book, “Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End American’s Long Energy Odyssey” (Bartleby, 2008). As some of you may know, I have a PhD in chemistry and worked early in my career as a research chemist for Exxon Corporation, trying to develop a commercial process to recover additional oil from reservoirs that have been depleted after conventional recovery methods. This was in the 60’s and even at that time the major oil companies were concerned about the depleted reserves of crude oil in the U.S. The Alaskan discovery at Prudhoe Bay in the 70’s gave us a breather, but as you can see the problem is still with us today?

As a scientist, I could never figure out why we didn’t put the effort into the use of nuclear power to meet our energy needs, particularly in the generation of electricity. This seemed obvious, since it is the most efficient, powerful, cheapest, and safest means of doing so. If the French have generated 75% of their electricity this way for the last 30 years, why couldn’t we? Good gracious, the French?

We have the technology to do this now, so why is it not even on Obama’s priority list? Obviously, the environmental lobby has convinced the liberal media and politicians that this is risky business because of the potential hazards posed by nuclear waste. The truth is, ladies and gentlemen, that there is no such thing as nuclear waste!

A typical nuclear fuel rod is made up of two forms of Uranium: U-235, the fissionable form which generates the energy upon degradation, and U-238, an inert form which remains as the carrier or packing material. Natural uranium ore contains only 0.7% of U-235 and must be “enriched” to 3% in order to qualify as reactor grade. To qualify for a nuclear weapon, the ore needs to be enriched to 90%, a difficult process, which only a few know how to do (Iran is trying right now!).

In a nuclear reactor, these fuel rods last for about 5 years before they are replaced. At that point, about 12 ounces of U-235 will have been converted to energy, enough to power the city of San Francisco for five years, with no carbon dioxide emissions or chemical waste of any kind. The depleted rods are then submerged in storage pools of water to block the radioactivity and after a few years they are stored in lead-lined casks, where they can sit for a century or so, if need be. Is this waste? Absolutely not; 95% is plain old U-238 which exists as 1% of the earth’s crust anyway, and could be put right back into the ground. The remaining 5% can be separated and 40% can be recycled as fuel and 60% has important use as medical and industrial isotopes. France actually reprocesses its recyclable material and the unused remains over the past 30 years sit beneath a single room at La Hague.

The truth is we send our depleted rods to Yucca Mountain in Nevada for storage and call it nuclear waste, when it really is material we could reuse for fuel and our $4 billion/yr. nuclear medicine industry, if we wanted to. If we had a significant nuclear industry, we would.

So, why don’t we build more nuclear power plants? I wish Greenpeace or Al Gore would tell me.