..."Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.
He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.
The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz17M33HTgN
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Fiscal Fix: Discussion
NPR is reporting that much of the meaningful cuts in the "Fiscal Fix" that were released a few weeks ago are not popular among a majority of voters and many lawmakers. I wanted to comment on ONE of the items in the report that I think is exactly what we need, although potentially hard to swallow.
One of the recommendations by the commission was reducing tax rates for every into 3 brackets ranging from about 12% - 24% (from what I remember) and in turn eliminating the mortgage tax break for homeowners. I think this is great.
For one this option removes the government incentives to borrow money, especially for housing. Even without directly addressing the problems with Freddie and Fannie lending, this would move governmental influence away from the mortgage market, eliminating the false incentive that writing off the interest on our loans is doing us a bit favor.
Also, lowering the overall tax rates for EVERYONE, and getting rid of tax breaks further eliminates governmental influence in the markets. Everything becomes much more simple. We pay our taxes, and we don't have to jump through hoops and spend all our resources looking for breaks and loopholes....although I still think a "fair tax" might be the way to go.
The fiscal commission does fall short in some areas, but the tax changes seem positive to me. The Healthcare legislation (Obamacare) will surely need to be removed to also save money. We must get the bearacracy out of the way, if we really want to save money. When people are spending money that is not theirs, they will not be nearly as careful with it as we would ourselves.
One of the recommendations by the commission was reducing tax rates for every into 3 brackets ranging from about 12% - 24% (from what I remember) and in turn eliminating the mortgage tax break for homeowners. I think this is great.
For one this option removes the government incentives to borrow money, especially for housing. Even without directly addressing the problems with Freddie and Fannie lending, this would move governmental influence away from the mortgage market, eliminating the false incentive that writing off the interest on our loans is doing us a bit favor.
Also, lowering the overall tax rates for EVERYONE, and getting rid of tax breaks further eliminates governmental influence in the markets. Everything becomes much more simple. We pay our taxes, and we don't have to jump through hoops and spend all our resources looking for breaks and loopholes....although I still think a "fair tax" might be the way to go.
The fiscal commission does fall short in some areas, but the tax changes seem positive to me. The Healthcare legislation (Obamacare) will surely need to be removed to also save money. We must get the bearacracy out of the way, if we really want to save money. When people are spending money that is not theirs, they will not be nearly as careful with it as we would ourselves.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Thanksgiving
"On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.
"But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness," destined to become the home of the Kennedy family. "There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning.
During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.
When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Yes, it was Indians that taught the white man how to skin beasts. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.
Here is the part [of Thanksgiving] that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.
All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.
Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.
He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.
"That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened?
It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh?
What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!
But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.
What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.
"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'
Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?
Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.
Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?
'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'
Bradford doesn't sound like much of a... liberal Democrat, "does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes.
Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47)
In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London.
And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'"
-Rush Limbaugh
Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.
"But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness," destined to become the home of the Kennedy family. "There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning.
During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.
When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Yes, it was Indians that taught the white man how to skin beasts. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.
Here is the part [of Thanksgiving] that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.
All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.
Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.
He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.
"That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened?
It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh?
What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!
But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.
What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.
"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'
Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?
Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.
Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?
'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'
Bradford doesn't sound like much of a... liberal Democrat, "does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes.
Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47)
In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London.
And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'"
-Rush Limbaugh
Friday, November 19, 2010
Meet the Press
There is some serious mis-representation going on by the media about votes in the congress. This, of course, has been going on forever, but I think it is important for us to see the real picture about the partisinship in the congress.
On November 18, 2010 there was a vote to extend long-term unemployment benefits for 60 days, at a cost of $12 billion or so dollars. Keep in mind that people on unemployment get 26 weeks of State funded benefits and then 99(!) weeks of Federally funded benefits. If you lose your job, you are potentially eligible for some kind of compensation for the next TWO YEARS! This is rediculous. There is absolutely no excuse for not finding a job in two years. If you can't find one...make one for yourself. Unemployment benefits seem to provide a nice benefit at a reasonable cost when the unexpected happens and people need a buffer for a few weeks (maybe months) while they figure out what to do...but the current length is rediculous.
Anyway, back to my original point. There are many reports circulating like this one in the New York Times that Republicans have blocked the legislation to extend benefits. Is this true?
Here are some facts:
- 435 members in the House of Representatives
- 2/3 majority needed to pass this legislation - that means 261 votes needed.
- The unemployment extension lost with only 258 vote Yea...they fell 3 votes short.
Who gets the blame? Republicans, because all 143 present voted against it. What they don't really tell you is that there were 11 democrats who voted against it as well. Keep in mind that they were only 3 votes short. There is no way that Republicans can block legislation, the Democrats have a super-majority.
This message by the press and many on the left have been happening for years since the Democrats took control of the House.
The facts are that there is unity and bipartisinship amongst Republicans and some Democrats against debt-spending measures that the leadership is trying to push.
Look back on all the legislation that hasn't gone through the House over the last couple of years, then think about why you've been told nothing is happening. Republicans have been powerless to stop anything IF the Democrats were unified in their efforts. Luckily there are some clear-thinking Democrats out there that realized some of the legislation being pounded through is not good for us and have voted against it.
On November 18, 2010 there was a vote to extend long-term unemployment benefits for 60 days, at a cost of $12 billion or so dollars. Keep in mind that people on unemployment get 26 weeks of State funded benefits and then 99(!) weeks of Federally funded benefits. If you lose your job, you are potentially eligible for some kind of compensation for the next TWO YEARS! This is rediculous. There is absolutely no excuse for not finding a job in two years. If you can't find one...make one for yourself. Unemployment benefits seem to provide a nice benefit at a reasonable cost when the unexpected happens and people need a buffer for a few weeks (maybe months) while they figure out what to do...but the current length is rediculous.
Anyway, back to my original point. There are many reports circulating like this one in the New York Times that Republicans have blocked the legislation to extend benefits. Is this true?
Here are some facts:
- 435 members in the House of Representatives
- 2/3 majority needed to pass this legislation - that means 261 votes needed.
- The unemployment extension lost with only 258 vote Yea...they fell 3 votes short.
Who gets the blame? Republicans, because all 143 present voted against it. What they don't really tell you is that there were 11 democrats who voted against it as well. Keep in mind that they were only 3 votes short. There is no way that Republicans can block legislation, the Democrats have a super-majority.
This message by the press and many on the left have been happening for years since the Democrats took control of the House.
The facts are that there is unity and bipartisinship amongst Republicans and some Democrats against debt-spending measures that the leadership is trying to push.
Look back on all the legislation that hasn't gone through the House over the last couple of years, then think about why you've been told nothing is happening. Republicans have been powerless to stop anything IF the Democrats were unified in their efforts. Luckily there are some clear-thinking Democrats out there that realized some of the legislation being pounded through is not good for us and have voted against it.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Food Insecure
Check out these Obesity (BMI) trends from the CDC. It is pretty startling that we are all getting so fat. I know my waistline could use some discipline. Only D.C. and Colorado have average BMI rates under 20%.
Then we see reports from US Department of Agriculture that an increasing number of Americans are facing "Hunger Insecurity". As of 2009, almost 15% of US households feel they don't have access to enough food.
These reports are decieving and actually very revealing if we read them properly. I see obesity increasing at the same time that we feel like we need more food than we are getting. Are the 15% actually starving, or are they obese and feel insecure about the average portions they are able to find and purchase? I am sarcastic on one hand, but seriously curious on the other.
Are we doing a dis-service to the starving people around the world by suggesting that Americans do not have "access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all members of the household?"
I can think of two government programs that can be cut immediately.
Then we see reports from US Department of Agriculture that an increasing number of Americans are facing "Hunger Insecurity". As of 2009, almost 15% of US households feel they don't have access to enough food.
These reports are decieving and actually very revealing if we read them properly. I see obesity increasing at the same time that we feel like we need more food than we are getting. Are the 15% actually starving, or are they obese and feel insecure about the average portions they are able to find and purchase? I am sarcastic on one hand, but seriously curious on the other.
Are we doing a dis-service to the starving people around the world by suggesting that Americans do not have "access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all members of the household?"
I can think of two government programs that can be cut immediately.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Fiscal Fix
This report released yesterday is quality reading for those interested in our national debt and all those pesky obligations that our government signs us up for.
Sort of long, but actually understandable. I see many good signs in this draft, and actually hope that Congress adopts some of these measures. I saw several good ideas, and several suspect ideas, but overall this draft seems very positive.
Fiscal Commission Draft (pdf)
Sort of long, but actually understandable. I see many good signs in this draft, and actually hope that Congress adopts some of these measures. I saw several good ideas, and several suspect ideas, but overall this draft seems very positive.
Fiscal Commission Draft (pdf)
Monday, November 1, 2010
Revisiting John Maynard Keynes
This is an excellent clip from NPR, and a nice counter-balance to the stuff Paul Krugman preaches; and all the other economists that our democrat leaders listen to.
Monday, October 25, 2010
No New Deficit Spending
"No new deficit spending", guess who made this vow 4 years ago before we have balooned the debt by 5 TRILLION dollars?
You can ignore the ad at the beginning, but the strong words by our soon-to-be-former speaker of the house are stunning. And to think that some people can't figure out why there are so many angry people in this country.
You can ignore the ad at the beginning, but the strong words by our soon-to-be-former speaker of the house are stunning. And to think that some people can't figure out why there are so many angry people in this country.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Too hard to explain
In a recent interview of Vice President Joe Biden...
Democrats aren’t running on the administration’s accomplishments like health-care and financial-regulatory overhaul and the stimulus because “it’s just too hard to explain,” Biden said.
When everyone across the country is realizing that the "accomplishments" of the current administration are hurting our economy, people like Biden are either ignorant of the truth or not telling the truth. Every "accomplishment" of the current administration has set this country on a backwards course. Health will get worse, government finance will get worse, and our economy will not be stimulated until we reverse all of these accomplishments.
Democrats aren’t running on the administration’s accomplishments like health-care and financial-regulatory overhaul and the stimulus because “it’s just too hard to explain,” Biden said.
When everyone across the country is realizing that the "accomplishments" of the current administration are hurting our economy, people like Biden are either ignorant of the truth or not telling the truth. Every "accomplishment" of the current administration has set this country on a backwards course. Health will get worse, government finance will get worse, and our economy will not be stimulated until we reverse all of these accomplishments.
Monday, October 11, 2010
They no longer represent me...
I encourage you to read this powerful insight into a portion of the American scientific community. When you hear our "leaders" say that the "debate is over" regarding global warming, we tread into dangerous territory. Dangerous on the part of scientists as they make large unfounded assumptions and even more dangerous on the part of American policy makers as they make decisions that directly affect the well-being of the American people based on the same false assumptions.
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
-----------------------------
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
-----------------------------
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Fiscal Picture
"The Obama administration’s insistence on fiscal rectitude is dictated not by financial necessity but by political considerations. The US is not in the position of Europe’s heavily indebted countries, which must pay hefty premiums over the price at which Germany can borrow. Interest rates on US government bonds have been falling and are near record lows, which means that financial markets anticipate deflation, not inflation." -George Soros
The snippet above from an article by George Soros highlights some key elements that progressives are totally missing the ball on, and causing them to talk in circles. The failure in George Soros' understanding falls into the last sentence. "Interest rates on US government bonds have been falling and are near record lows, which means that financial markets anticipate deflation, not inflation."
Sales of gold are one indicator, the sentiment of the American public is another; most Americans are looking down the road, not at their front porch. When governments print money on huge scales, and take on debt as they are doing now, inflation has to be on the way. Financial markets may be anticipating deflation, but everyone else in the country (namely those who do not make their living in financial markets) see an inflated and de-valued dollar.
The dirty little secret here is that when you hear "interest rates are falling and markets are anticipating deflation"; this means that the Federal Reserve is pushing interest rates down because THEY want people to borrow more money and take on more of the debt!
The market has nothing to do with it at this point. The market is pushing against the insane policies of public stimulus, increased debt load, and attempts at distorting the market by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department.
Everything progressives policymakers are doing is an unsustainable attempt to make tomorrow look like the Garden of Eden, while our descendants will be forced to shoulder increased debt and reliance on governments.
The crazy part is that most of these people are pushing for environmental sustainability, while they push a totally unsustainable economic policy, the latter of which nothing is possible. If the government forces our money away from us, or makes our dollars worth nothing, they are setting us back many decades.
We keep hearing from the White House that tough decisions need to be made, all while the tough decisions of cutting back on stimulus and entitlement programs is being avoided.
The snippet above from an article by George Soros highlights some key elements that progressives are totally missing the ball on, and causing them to talk in circles. The failure in George Soros' understanding falls into the last sentence. "Interest rates on US government bonds have been falling and are near record lows, which means that financial markets anticipate deflation, not inflation."
Sales of gold are one indicator, the sentiment of the American public is another; most Americans are looking down the road, not at their front porch. When governments print money on huge scales, and take on debt as they are doing now, inflation has to be on the way. Financial markets may be anticipating deflation, but everyone else in the country (namely those who do not make their living in financial markets) see an inflated and de-valued dollar.
The dirty little secret here is that when you hear "interest rates are falling and markets are anticipating deflation"; this means that the Federal Reserve is pushing interest rates down because THEY want people to borrow more money and take on more of the debt!
The market has nothing to do with it at this point. The market is pushing against the insane policies of public stimulus, increased debt load, and attempts at distorting the market by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department.
Everything progressives policymakers are doing is an unsustainable attempt to make tomorrow look like the Garden of Eden, while our descendants will be forced to shoulder increased debt and reliance on governments.
The crazy part is that most of these people are pushing for environmental sustainability, while they push a totally unsustainable economic policy, the latter of which nothing is possible. If the government forces our money away from us, or makes our dollars worth nothing, they are setting us back many decades.
We keep hearing from the White House that tough decisions need to be made, all while the tough decisions of cutting back on stimulus and entitlement programs is being avoided.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Quote of the Day
"Any party which takes credit for the rain must not be surprised if its opponents blame it for the drought." -Dwight Morrow
Monday, September 13, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Direct Response
If our leaders and politicians could speak in clear words like Governer Chris Christie, we would all be better off.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Legal Theft?
When I start thinking about the word "theft" and compare it to what our government does, both local and federal, it gets a little scary.
Let's say I have a neighbor who has a disease and needs a special medicine to cure it. Since I don't have the money to help him, I go to my other neighbor, break-in to his house and steal the amount of money needed for the medicine and give it to my neighbor in need. Mind you, I didn't take all of the money I found, only what was required to help my sick neighbor.
Did I do something wrong?
Let's say that before I take the money for my sick neighbor, I go around and get the support of everyone else in the neighborhood, township, county and state. Millions of people support what I am doing.
Is it wrong now?
Let's say that a majority of people in my community elect me to a leadership position, and I then take from one neighbor to help the sick neighbor.
Is this OK?
In my previous post, I said that "This is a prime example of emotion triumphing over common sense." We have moved beyond that to emotion triumphing over legality. Many of the laws passed recently are taking resources from one individual and giving it to another. A quick glance at the constitution gives some perspective on what IS allowed to be taken from us.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ..." - Article I, Section 8
The legality of the health care bill passed a few months ago was definitely tied to the "general welfare" clause of the constitution mentioned above....see Hoyer, Congress has power to force Americans to buy insurance. Beyond the general welfare clause, I also note that taxes should be "uniform" throughout the United States. The health care bill does no such thing; in fact, our entire tax structure does no such thing.
A couple points stick out in my mind when thinking about the general welfare of this nation:
- A majority of citizens opposed the health care legislation before it was passed.
- The bill does not give or require uniform resources to each individual. The ability to pay the health care tax is unevenly distributed.
The bills that our beloved government pass as law in most cases go well beyond a uniform tax that benefits everyone equally. Taking money/property from someone to give to someone else is theft. In the case of our government, it is legal theft.
Theft: "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny." - Random House Dictionary
Is repealing the health care legislation really so crazy?
Let's say I have a neighbor who has a disease and needs a special medicine to cure it. Since I don't have the money to help him, I go to my other neighbor, break-in to his house and steal the amount of money needed for the medicine and give it to my neighbor in need. Mind you, I didn't take all of the money I found, only what was required to help my sick neighbor.
Did I do something wrong?
Let's say that before I take the money for my sick neighbor, I go around and get the support of everyone else in the neighborhood, township, county and state. Millions of people support what I am doing.
Is it wrong now?
Let's say that a majority of people in my community elect me to a leadership position, and I then take from one neighbor to help the sick neighbor.
Is this OK?
In my previous post, I said that "This is a prime example of emotion triumphing over common sense." We have moved beyond that to emotion triumphing over legality. Many of the laws passed recently are taking resources from one individual and giving it to another. A quick glance at the constitution gives some perspective on what IS allowed to be taken from us.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ..." - Article I, Section 8
The legality of the health care bill passed a few months ago was definitely tied to the "general welfare" clause of the constitution mentioned above....see Hoyer, Congress has power to force Americans to buy insurance. Beyond the general welfare clause, I also note that taxes should be "uniform" throughout the United States. The health care bill does no such thing; in fact, our entire tax structure does no such thing.
A couple points stick out in my mind when thinking about the general welfare of this nation:
- A majority of citizens opposed the health care legislation before it was passed.
- The bill does not give or require uniform resources to each individual. The ability to pay the health care tax is unevenly distributed.
The bills that our beloved government pass as law in most cases go well beyond a uniform tax that benefits everyone equally. Taking money/property from someone to give to someone else is theft. In the case of our government, it is legal theft.
Theft: "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny." - Random House Dictionary
Is repealing the health care legislation really so crazy?
Friday, August 20, 2010
Speechless
In a speech on Sept. 9, 2009, President Obama said: "Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else. (Applause.)
Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how."
Keep this in mind, the American people were sold on the "Obamacare" because it would reduce the deficit; period.
Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how."
Keep this in mind, the American people were sold on the "Obamacare" because it would reduce the deficit; period.
This is a prime example of emotion triumphing over common sense.
Government entities are continually increasing estimates on what the health care bill will cost, showing that the bill will only increase our deficit. On top of whatever the estimates are worth, many admit that we don't know what the costs will be at all.
1) April 21, 2010, We don't know what Obamacare costs will be
2) May 11, 2010, Healthcare costs will top 1 Trillion
3) May 18, 2010, Obamacare would cost over 2 Trillion
4) June 18, 2010, CBO Director expresses doubts about deficit reduction; discretionary spending will create deficit.
Now the democratic party is saying "don't say the law will decrease costs and deficit." Incredible!
"Democrats worked hard to get a favorable score on the legislation from the Congressional Budget Office, figuring a big selling point of the law would be that it reduces the deficit. This part of the sales pitch is apparently not as helpful as they predicted."
Not only was deficit reduction a "big selling point", it WAS the selling point.
If the words our President spoke were true a year ago, once the costs start spiralling out of control, shouldn't we consider repealing this act and go in a new direction? It is plain that cost reduction was not the main point. Rather, creating programs to prop people up and create dependency seems to be more important. All this will make it harder to choose for ourselves and will lower the standard of care that this country exceeds at.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Shrimp
Most of the media reports are saying that the shrimping season in the Gulf of Mexico will be sub-par/devestating/slower-than-expected this year (2010); or that people will not buy the shrimp fearing that it is unsafe.
Due to these reports of death and destruction, I see us being primed for a record year. We'll probably see higher yields and greater consumption of shrimp.
I'll track this prediction to see where it ends up.
Due to these reports of death and destruction, I see us being primed for a record year. We'll probably see higher yields and greater consumption of shrimp.
I'll track this prediction to see where it ends up.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Dependent Society
I'm stuck on the idea of dependence. As our governments, from local to federal, become increasingly larger, I continue to see reliance and dependence on our governments increase. This dependence comes at the expense of our long-term strength, independence, and ultimately our freedom.
Another example of ways our government is increasing this dependence is additional loans to people who can't afford them. A.K.A. Slavery.
"Another $1 billion will go to a new program being run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It will provide homeowners with emergency zero-interest rate loans of up to $50,000 for up to two years."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38658978
I haven't figured out what happens when someone doesn't repay the loan after two years, but the well-meaning, big government hacks who keep coming up with these plans to loan more money are simply missing the point. Debt serves no one. Debt hinders us from becoming self-sustaining.
When someone is suffering under the stress of debt, more debt will only prolong the agony and make the fall to the bottom worse when the eventual collapse comes. This is true for individuals and our nation. Our big government proponents play politics with issues like this, claiming that they are helping those in need, when they are simply pushing their collapse into the future so they can gain a few votes.
There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon as the Feds rethink policies that encourage home ownership, but the crux of this issue then boils down to fixing the problem that the government created. Instead of getting out of the way and letting the market determine how loans work; letting banks and lending institutions shoulder the burden and the risk, the big government response is to make the bureaucracy bigger by creating rules and regulations that drive up costs and force the direction of the market.
Then there's lovely line in the article above that says the government will help low-income renters even more in the face of limited lending; thus driving rental prices even higher. It's a never ending cycle of higher costs and more entitlements.
Our politicians are creating problems and then campaigning on the idea that they can fix the problem. Rather than undo the policies that created the problem, they make them even further reaching. In most cases this is happening on the R and D sides of the aisle. We need to be demanding that entire departments within the federal government be downsized and/or eliminated.
The case for local control and oversight of most programs is more powerful now than ever. Cities and States can much more easily manage and allocate the resources coming out of their communities than the federal government.
Of course, we need to start with ourselves. We need not rely on our government for our needs. If we find ourselves in this position, the options for success in the future are becoming smaller and smaller. We already have far too many people relying on the government for food, housing, and now health care. What else is there?
I keep going back to the analogy of feeding the bears in the state park. What can't we feed the bears? If we do so, they will stop hunting for themselves and eventually forget how.
Another example of ways our government is increasing this dependence is additional loans to people who can't afford them. A.K.A. Slavery.
"Another $1 billion will go to a new program being run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It will provide homeowners with emergency zero-interest rate loans of up to $50,000 for up to two years."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38658978
I haven't figured out what happens when someone doesn't repay the loan after two years, but the well-meaning, big government hacks who keep coming up with these plans to loan more money are simply missing the point. Debt serves no one. Debt hinders us from becoming self-sustaining.
When someone is suffering under the stress of debt, more debt will only prolong the agony and make the fall to the bottom worse when the eventual collapse comes. This is true for individuals and our nation. Our big government proponents play politics with issues like this, claiming that they are helping those in need, when they are simply pushing their collapse into the future so they can gain a few votes.
There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon as the Feds rethink policies that encourage home ownership, but the crux of this issue then boils down to fixing the problem that the government created. Instead of getting out of the way and letting the market determine how loans work; letting banks and lending institutions shoulder the burden and the risk, the big government response is to make the bureaucracy bigger by creating rules and regulations that drive up costs and force the direction of the market.
Then there's lovely line in the article above that says the government will help low-income renters even more in the face of limited lending; thus driving rental prices even higher. It's a never ending cycle of higher costs and more entitlements.
Our politicians are creating problems and then campaigning on the idea that they can fix the problem. Rather than undo the policies that created the problem, they make them even further reaching. In most cases this is happening on the R and D sides of the aisle. We need to be demanding that entire departments within the federal government be downsized and/or eliminated.
The case for local control and oversight of most programs is more powerful now than ever. Cities and States can much more easily manage and allocate the resources coming out of their communities than the federal government.
Of course, we need to start with ourselves. We need not rely on our government for our needs. If we find ourselves in this position, the options for success in the future are becoming smaller and smaller. We already have far too many people relying on the government for food, housing, and now health care. What else is there?
I keep going back to the analogy of feeding the bears in the state park. What can't we feed the bears? If we do so, they will stop hunting for themselves and eventually forget how.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Insurance, for food?
Check out this article on food insurance. It highlights a point I have tried to make for some time. It seems ridiculous at first and you can't exactly predict what would happen if we actually had food insurance, but when you begin to compare the idea with our current health care-insurance relationships, you realize how the lack of competition and over-reliance on insurance drives prices high and makes it nearly impossible to manage...yet our government keeps on trying by making bureaucracies ever bigger.
Cash is King...to any business. Show the money up front and see what kind of deals can be had. Our recent dealings with certain healthcare costs prove that hospitals realize when people have limited coverage, they simply can't pay the same high price that the insurance company blindly forks over. They realize they will have to change the rules a bit, or get nothing at all.
Free(er) Market Health Care would amaze everyone.
When decisions start being made between the doctor and patient, without other entities like insurance companies and government getting involved, the results will be better, smarter, and cheaper. It would HAVE to be so.
Cash is King...to any business. Show the money up front and see what kind of deals can be had. Our recent dealings with certain healthcare costs prove that hospitals realize when people have limited coverage, they simply can't pay the same high price that the insurance company blindly forks over. They realize they will have to change the rules a bit, or get nothing at all.
Free(er) Market Health Care would amaze everyone.
When decisions start being made between the doctor and patient, without other entities like insurance companies and government getting involved, the results will be better, smarter, and cheaper. It would HAVE to be so.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Quote of the Day
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a
right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
- James Madison
Think about that one for a minute. What "charity" programs can you think of that our government spends money on?
right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
- James Madison
Think about that one for a minute. What "charity" programs can you think of that our government spends money on?
Monday, July 19, 2010
When do we call it a Lie?
Keeping with the tax theme that I started in the last post, it seems that what we were told about the new Health Insurance Mandates being a penalty, not a tax, is really not true. At least, in the eyes of the law, there is no difference.
The line I find most interesting in this NYT article is:
'When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.” '
Now the administrations department of justice is saying:
'...the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.'
What goes through your mind when I say that "the president is lying?" Is that too strong of a word?
Lying is way to common in Washington and amongst our leaders, why do many people seem to be OK with it? After lies are discovered, are we really so naive that we will assume that person is telling the truth in everything else they say. Very disturbing. There are plenty of guilty parties beyond our current president, but he has the most readily available example.
Instead of calling it what it is, a lie, we say things like the administration is "changing its stance."
Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax
The line I find most interesting in this NYT article is:
'When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.” '
Now the administrations department of justice is saying:
'...the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.'
What goes through your mind when I say that "the president is lying?" Is that too strong of a word?
Lying is way to common in Washington and amongst our leaders, why do many people seem to be OK with it? After lies are discovered, are we really so naive that we will assume that person is telling the truth in everything else they say. Very disturbing. There are plenty of guilty parties beyond our current president, but he has the most readily available example.
Instead of calling it what it is, a lie, we say things like the administration is "changing its stance."
Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax
Friday, July 2, 2010
NOTICE: Tax Increases
The following is a an article from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) on tax increases that will begin happening next year. I find these stats useful and we decide how/what to invest, save and spend. Plus it's always nice to see how much we all contribute to the government.
----------------------------
First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:
Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:
- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.
Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.
Second Wave: Obamacare
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:
The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.
Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”
Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.
Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.
Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.
Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sX6XTRyc
----------------------------
First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:
Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:
- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.
Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.
Second Wave: Obamacare
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:
The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.
Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”
Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.
Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.
Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.
Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sX6XTRyc
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Religious Freedom Day
"According to the Liberty Counsel, the Collier County School Board allowed World Changers to distribute free Bibles to students during off-school hours on Religious Freedom Day, but now the school officials claim that Bibles do not provide any educational benefit to the students and the distribution should stop.
The Collier County School District policy specifically allows the distribution of literature by nonprofit organizations, but only with the approval of the superintendent and the Community Request Committee, whose members are appointed by the superintendent. Approval was denied to World Changers, despite the fact that its distribution included a disclaimer of any school endorsement or sponsorship and that receiving a Bible was purely voluntary. "
The Collier County School District policy specifically allows the distribution of literature by nonprofit organizations, but only with the approval of the superintendent and the Community Request Committee, whose members are appointed by the superintendent. Approval was denied to World Changers, despite the fact that its distribution included a disclaimer of any school endorsement or sponsorship and that receiving a Bible was purely voluntary. "
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Inalienable Rights
I was turned off by an article today, not because of the contents, but because of one little statement.... "Choosing where to live and how to live are basic inalienable rights."
I wholeheartedly disagree.
If I choose to live in your back yard, or under a local bridge, or in a local library; is that my inalienable right? Is it my inalienable right to marry 4 women?
This article highlighted some supreme ignorance on behalf of the author, who has severely confused our legal rights, with those rights given to us by God (nature).
The big question for me is, "why am I so upset about this?" It is such a small statement, but it really got me fired up.
Can you guess what the article was about?
I wholeheartedly disagree.
If I choose to live in your back yard, or under a local bridge, or in a local library; is that my inalienable right? Is it my inalienable right to marry 4 women?
This article highlighted some supreme ignorance on behalf of the author, who has severely confused our legal rights, with those rights given to us by God (nature).
The big question for me is, "why am I so upset about this?" It is such a small statement, but it really got me fired up.
Can you guess what the article was about?
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
End Times?
I can't help but giggle a bit at what happened last night during the storm that I slept through. At the same time I'm wondering what it all means.
Touchdown Jesus is no More
The discussion on "why" this happened could go anywhere.
Touchdown Jesus is no More
The discussion on "why" this happened could go anywhere.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Spending
No more taxes spending!
It's been a while...I have to post SOMETHING to keep people engaged the political/philisophical topics I embark on.
" This month three members of Congress have been beaten in their bids for re-election -- a Republican senator from Utah, a Democratic congressman from West Virginia and a Republican-turned-Democrat senator from Pennsylvania. Their records and their curricula vitae are different. But they all have one thing in common: They are members of an Appropriations Committee. "
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-gathering-revolt-against-government-spending-94603774.html
The article above is worth a glance, and I find it particularly interesting that some of the key losses (or people who are retiring) are part of appropriations. There are connections made about how our current "no spending" stance, fueled by the Tea Party, is different from other political revolts in the past.
Much of this, I think, is due to our awareness that debt is dumb. Many Americans are beginning to see that even spending that "benefits" them as their elected officials bring home the bacon, is not the right way to go. Our liberty and freedom is more important than most other areas of our life. People are realizing that they will not benefit from reliance on the government.
It's been a while...I have to post SOMETHING to keep people engaged the political/philisophical topics I embark on.
" This month three members of Congress have been beaten in their bids for re-election -- a Republican senator from Utah, a Democratic congressman from West Virginia and a Republican-turned-Democrat senator from Pennsylvania. Their records and their curricula vitae are different. But they all have one thing in common: They are members of an Appropriations Committee. "
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-gathering-revolt-against-government-spending-94603774.html
The article above is worth a glance, and I find it particularly interesting that some of the key losses (or people who are retiring) are part of appropriations. There are connections made about how our current "no spending" stance, fueled by the Tea Party, is different from other political revolts in the past.
Much of this, I think, is due to our awareness that debt is dumb. Many Americans are beginning to see that even spending that "benefits" them as their elected officials bring home the bacon, is not the right way to go. Our liberty and freedom is more important than most other areas of our life. People are realizing that they will not benefit from reliance on the government.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
This Should Be Good...
Watch the archeological news for the next few months/years, the latest find in Turkey could have huge ramifications if it is what some think it is.
Noah's Ark?
Perhaps God caused the ark to rest in an unusual place so that when we found it, there would be no explanation other than, "there was a huge flood that covered the earch and this boat landed on top of a mountain." My world view continues to be solidified every day.
Noah's Ark?
Perhaps God caused the ark to rest in an unusual place so that when we found it, there would be no explanation other than, "there was a huge flood that covered the earch and this boat landed on top of a mountain." My world view continues to be solidified every day.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
News Flash
As seen Monday, 4/26/2010, Contessa Brewer, Anchor:
"MSNBC News Flash: Arizona Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant"
I guess this is why no one watches MSNBC anymore.
"MSNBC News Flash: Arizona Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant"
I guess this is why no one watches MSNBC anymore.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Working As Planned
I am curious. For those of you who supported the health care legislation that was passed several weeks ago; what sold you on the bill?
Several articles have stuck out to me over the last couple weeks that highlight what even my tiny brain saw coming from a mile away. Items Americans were told were in the health care bill, but were not...
1) Rate Increases. President Obama used an example of a 39% premium increase that some California, Blue Cross customers saw; and said that this legislation would prevent that...it doesn't.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-premiums13-2010apr13,0,6096091.story
2) Coverage for all Americans. The new bill claims to cover 32 million of uninsured Americans, that leaves out about 23 million people, some of which are illegal aliens and don't need coverage anyway, but there is still a segment of people uncovered. This isn't universal coverage.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/03/health_care_for_all_minus_23_m.html
3) Lower Health Care Costs. Speaker Pelosi and President Obama repeatedly said that the health care legislation would save money and reduce costs. The program hasn't even started full swing and we are getting evidence that the opposite is true.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs
I have a strong feeling that for those who supported this bill, one of the items above was the selling point. I guarantee we'll find more examples of failure as we move forward.
I looked through the archives and noticed that here, here, here, here, here and here, I gave healthcare specific examples of:
- how government never works as intended
- how government involvement increases costs
- how the proposed changes to health care will not work
It's kind of fun to see what I "predicted" in the past. Now I can see how wrong (or right) I was. Where has all the common sense gone? When has a big government program worked as intended? The answer is NEVER, and that is what the progressive left in this country refuses to accept. They have put their blinders on and are trying to drive us down the highway. We need to change drivers, get out of the car, or try to restore some sight to the blind.
Several articles have stuck out to me over the last couple weeks that highlight what even my tiny brain saw coming from a mile away. Items Americans were told were in the health care bill, but were not...
1) Rate Increases. President Obama used an example of a 39% premium increase that some California, Blue Cross customers saw; and said that this legislation would prevent that...it doesn't.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-premiums13-2010apr13,0,6096091.story
2) Coverage for all Americans. The new bill claims to cover 32 million of uninsured Americans, that leaves out about 23 million people, some of which are illegal aliens and don't need coverage anyway, but there is still a segment of people uncovered. This isn't universal coverage.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/03/health_care_for_all_minus_23_m.html
3) Lower Health Care Costs. Speaker Pelosi and President Obama repeatedly said that the health care legislation would save money and reduce costs. The program hasn't even started full swing and we are getting evidence that the opposite is true.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs
I have a strong feeling that for those who supported this bill, one of the items above was the selling point. I guarantee we'll find more examples of failure as we move forward.
I looked through the archives and noticed that here, here, here, here, here and here, I gave healthcare specific examples of:
- how government never works as intended
- how government involvement increases costs
- how the proposed changes to health care will not work
It's kind of fun to see what I "predicted" in the past. Now I can see how wrong (or right) I was. Where has all the common sense gone? When has a big government program worked as intended? The answer is NEVER, and that is what the progressive left in this country refuses to accept. They have put their blinders on and are trying to drive us down the highway. We need to change drivers, get out of the car, or try to restore some sight to the blind.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Beyond Intent
After sitting in traffic for an hour and a half the other day, I am trying to figure out what the the upside is to sitting in a car for that long. I recall a conversation with my Grandpa Myers several years before he died about how people today have short attentions spans and require instant gratification. His idea was that when the country was founded, and even well into the 20th century, working men and women (more of which were farmers, cowboys, hunters, and labourers) had time to think and to develop personal philosophies about the issues that faced them and their country. Today we receive so much information that we are overloaded, and, in many cases forced to take quick action without truly thinking about the consequences.
I remind myself that sitting in the car is my time to think, to contemplate, and in many cases listen...to the radio. Ever 3 or 4 days I'll turn on Sean Hannity on my drive home. Last week a caller said something to the affect that 'Christians cannot be conservative because Jesus would have promoted the idea that we should give what we have to the poor.' I have heard remarks about this same subject before, and know people that ask themselves "what would Jesus do?" in regards to political and societal issues. In my opinion these people have been blinded by their good intentions to see that what they are supporting doesn't work that well.
Intent does not equal results.
The liberal portion of this country seems to be blindly guided by their intentions. This might sounds good to some, but is this "intent blindness" really moving us forward, progressing our communities and society? It sounds great to say "everyone should have access to affordable health care"; how can leaders who intend to care for every ones needs be wrong?
If we look at the results of the bureaucratic systems that these intentions create, we will see waste, fraud and abuse in EVERY case. If we truly examine the products that these "good intentions" have created, we would see that the systems don't work.
Among the throngs of frustrated Americans who are becoming frustrated at the increasing slavery being brought upon them through higher taxes, more rules and regulations and more debt that the public is responsible for; we often hear the question "what can I do?"
I have been thinking about what we can do for a while now, and I keep coming back to one answer. Educate yourselves and vote. This won't satisfy those of you who want instant gratification, but with a little patience and thought, this country can come together and find real solutions to the problems that we face.
To educate yourself, pick a topic; pick any government run system and see if it really is working effectively. I learned a couple weeks ago that in Washington D.C., it costs taxpayers over $3500 per month to house the homeless. Think about your mortgage payment and tell me how this number compares. If someone gave you $3500 every month, how many homeless people could you house?
When the government starts doling out money, the good intentions start getting clouded. When government money is on the table, there is no incentive to be thrifty or to NOT spend what someone has given you. When people are spending money that is not their own; if it's available, the cost of the service doesn't matter, thrift doesn't exist....costs inevitably go higher.
If you want to change the country, go beyond intent and start looking at results. Educate yourselves and be prepared to discuss the finer points of small government with everyone you meet. When you are ready to defend your views, the situation will find you. Our task is to be ready when the time comes, embrace the moments when life might be trying to remind you to sit and think for a while.
I remind myself that sitting in the car is my time to think, to contemplate, and in many cases listen...to the radio. Ever 3 or 4 days I'll turn on Sean Hannity on my drive home. Last week a caller said something to the affect that 'Christians cannot be conservative because Jesus would have promoted the idea that we should give what we have to the poor.' I have heard remarks about this same subject before, and know people that ask themselves "what would Jesus do?" in regards to political and societal issues. In my opinion these people have been blinded by their good intentions to see that what they are supporting doesn't work that well.
Intent does not equal results.
The liberal portion of this country seems to be blindly guided by their intentions. This might sounds good to some, but is this "intent blindness" really moving us forward, progressing our communities and society? It sounds great to say "everyone should have access to affordable health care"; how can leaders who intend to care for every ones needs be wrong?
If we look at the results of the bureaucratic systems that these intentions create, we will see waste, fraud and abuse in EVERY case. If we truly examine the products that these "good intentions" have created, we would see that the systems don't work.
Among the throngs of frustrated Americans who are becoming frustrated at the increasing slavery being brought upon them through higher taxes, more rules and regulations and more debt that the public is responsible for; we often hear the question "what can I do?"
I have been thinking about what we can do for a while now, and I keep coming back to one answer. Educate yourselves and vote. This won't satisfy those of you who want instant gratification, but with a little patience and thought, this country can come together and find real solutions to the problems that we face.
To educate yourself, pick a topic; pick any government run system and see if it really is working effectively. I learned a couple weeks ago that in Washington D.C., it costs taxpayers over $3500 per month to house the homeless. Think about your mortgage payment and tell me how this number compares. If someone gave you $3500 every month, how many homeless people could you house?
When the government starts doling out money, the good intentions start getting clouded. When government money is on the table, there is no incentive to be thrifty or to NOT spend what someone has given you. When people are spending money that is not their own; if it's available, the cost of the service doesn't matter, thrift doesn't exist....costs inevitably go higher.
If you want to change the country, go beyond intent and start looking at results. Educate yourselves and be prepared to discuss the finer points of small government with everyone you meet. When you are ready to defend your views, the situation will find you. Our task is to be ready when the time comes, embrace the moments when life might be trying to remind you to sit and think for a while.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Healthy Thoughts
The passage of "Obama Care" has sparked a fire in many people. Apparently a local congressman from Cincinnati (Driehaus) has received death threats against him and his family; I'll just say that this is uncalled for and counter-productive. On the same token, it is important to look at why these threats are being made. I just hope that the threatened congressmen realize why and address the problem.
We the people of this country have elected leaders that will represent us, consider our opinions and take our votes to Washington. The elected have ignored us. People like Driehaus should realize that a majority of his constituents told him in every way possible, not to vote for the health care bill. He even vowed not too, until the last minute when he changed his mind. Hopefully these folks realize that they need to start listening to those they represent, not those who dole out favors with other people's money in Washington.
I heard another congressman say that these threats were uncalled for and that we should have a civilized debate. I couldn't agree more, it's just too bad that the democratic led congress refused to have real debates on the merits of health care. Election results will tell the real story when the time comes.
The details of our new health care system are hidden in 2000 pages of a bill somewhere and will probably be never fully understood, but the concepts behind the bill are clear...socialize our health care system. Health care is sold as a basic human right, but when in comes down to it, we are each responsible for our own health. This bill seeks only to distribute the means of paying for health care and does not really aim at lowering costs and making it truly affordable to everyone.
The great experiment of American socialism has truly begun. I have to say that I agree with Doug French at the Mises Institute when he says Socialism "will produce here what it has produced everywhere: stagnation, over utilization, rationing, and the sacrifice of individual well-being in the name of collective justice. This is the result not only of every experiment in socialized medicine but of every experiment in socialism generally."
On top of this, those responsible for the increase of socialism in this country will not answer the basic question: When has a big government program ever worked as intended, being less expensive and more efficient than the alternatives?
When the system becomes over-extended, as it has in Canada and the UK, our "right to health care" will really begin to trump our "right to life" as we all learn to depend on a system that cannot sustain us. If we learn to support ourselves and anticipate our needs in the future, we'll be ready to sustain life. As care is increasingly rationed through socialized programs, we will only become dependent, frustrated and helpless.
Many pundits on the right are crying that "the end justifies the means" for the democratic party. I will go one further. "The intent, justifies the means." The end that they claim will never happen, while their system is built on their supposed good intentions.
Time will tell the true story, but I am confident in the examples of every other socialized program in the world. If we continue down this path, failure is on the horizon. When we return to a focus on the individual, and equal opportunity for all, then we will being soaring higher than any other civilized people once again. We must learn to work for ourselves and not rely on the public treasury to support our every whim. Hopefully our transition back to conservative principles is a peacefull one.
We the people of this country have elected leaders that will represent us, consider our opinions and take our votes to Washington. The elected have ignored us. People like Driehaus should realize that a majority of his constituents told him in every way possible, not to vote for the health care bill. He even vowed not too, until the last minute when he changed his mind. Hopefully these folks realize that they need to start listening to those they represent, not those who dole out favors with other people's money in Washington.
I heard another congressman say that these threats were uncalled for and that we should have a civilized debate. I couldn't agree more, it's just too bad that the democratic led congress refused to have real debates on the merits of health care. Election results will tell the real story when the time comes.
The details of our new health care system are hidden in 2000 pages of a bill somewhere and will probably be never fully understood, but the concepts behind the bill are clear...socialize our health care system. Health care is sold as a basic human right, but when in comes down to it, we are each responsible for our own health. This bill seeks only to distribute the means of paying for health care and does not really aim at lowering costs and making it truly affordable to everyone.
The great experiment of American socialism has truly begun. I have to say that I agree with Doug French at the Mises Institute when he says Socialism "will produce here what it has produced everywhere: stagnation, over utilization, rationing, and the sacrifice of individual well-being in the name of collective justice. This is the result not only of every experiment in socialized medicine but of every experiment in socialism generally."
On top of this, those responsible for the increase of socialism in this country will not answer the basic question: When has a big government program ever worked as intended, being less expensive and more efficient than the alternatives?
When the system becomes over-extended, as it has in Canada and the UK, our "right to health care" will really begin to trump our "right to life" as we all learn to depend on a system that cannot sustain us. If we learn to support ourselves and anticipate our needs in the future, we'll be ready to sustain life. As care is increasingly rationed through socialized programs, we will only become dependent, frustrated and helpless.
Many pundits on the right are crying that "the end justifies the means" for the democratic party. I will go one further. "The intent, justifies the means." The end that they claim will never happen, while their system is built on their supposed good intentions.
Time will tell the true story, but I am confident in the examples of every other socialized program in the world. If we continue down this path, failure is on the horizon. When we return to a focus on the individual, and equal opportunity for all, then we will being soaring higher than any other civilized people once again. We must learn to work for ourselves and not rely on the public treasury to support our every whim. Hopefully our transition back to conservative principles is a peacefull one.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Quote of the Day
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
- Alexander Tyler
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
- Alexander Tyler
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
What does lots of snow mean?
Do these clips make you laugh as much as I am right now? By their own reasoning, the record snow falls that we are having now, must mean that the globe is not warming.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Climate Un-Change
We don't hear as much about Climate Change on the news anymore; because the holes in the science are getting bigger everyday in my opinion, but I know the true believers haven't given up yet. I would be interested in hearing from them.
Several articles lately tell a different story than one we might have heard a year or two ago. What do these UK papers know that we don't see reported in the US.
The professors climate change retreat
Climate Change retreat, no warming for 15 years
World may not be warming
The IPCC, one of man-made global warmings biggest advocates, keeps showing their true colors; although not suprising when you look at the big picture.
Start from the beginning. The IPCC was created to monitor man's effects on global warming. The very creation of this group was predicated on the belief that man had some effect on global warming. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" here, it has been "guilty while we find the evidence".
Of course, if someone has a theory that they want to test, there is no harm in following the theory. The problems really begin when politicians pickup on an issue and use it to create a moral separation from their opponents. How many politicians recently have said that the science is settled and that something must be done? It didn't matter to them that the science was fuzzy at best, they never cared to look into it further; but many politicians immediately saw the opportunity to vilify big business, and make the case that they were standing up for the little guy, while their opponents didn't care about anyone. Even worse, media companies carried the torch further.
From my view, man-made climate change made absolutely no sense within any world view...We Cannot Destroy The Earth. For some reason people are abandoning reason, and I haven't really figured out why that is. I know the heart is involved, we have started feeling our way through some of these big ideas rather than using our heads to figure out what was really going on. Passion is not bad, but if we lack the ability to self-evaluate, look at our assumptions, and really put our beliefs to the test; will it be our good intentions or the truth that lead us to the progress that many of us want.
We must begin evaluating our beliefs against our own views of the world. We might be suprised that contradictions exist within our very own thoughts and beliefs. I can't claim to know everything, but I am open to have a discussion. I want my beliefs challenged. Only through testing them, can they be proven one way or another.
Several articles lately tell a different story than one we might have heard a year or two ago. What do these UK papers know that we don't see reported in the US.
The professors climate change retreat
Climate Change retreat, no warming for 15 years
World may not be warming
The IPCC, one of man-made global warmings biggest advocates, keeps showing their true colors; although not suprising when you look at the big picture.
Start from the beginning. The IPCC was created to monitor man's effects on global warming. The very creation of this group was predicated on the belief that man had some effect on global warming. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" here, it has been "guilty while we find the evidence".
Of course, if someone has a theory that they want to test, there is no harm in following the theory. The problems really begin when politicians pickup on an issue and use it to create a moral separation from their opponents. How many politicians recently have said that the science is settled and that something must be done? It didn't matter to them that the science was fuzzy at best, they never cared to look into it further; but many politicians immediately saw the opportunity to vilify big business, and make the case that they were standing up for the little guy, while their opponents didn't care about anyone. Even worse, media companies carried the torch further.
From my view, man-made climate change made absolutely no sense within any world view...We Cannot Destroy The Earth. For some reason people are abandoning reason, and I haven't really figured out why that is. I know the heart is involved, we have started feeling our way through some of these big ideas rather than using our heads to figure out what was really going on. Passion is not bad, but if we lack the ability to self-evaluate, look at our assumptions, and really put our beliefs to the test; will it be our good intentions or the truth that lead us to the progress that many of us want.
We must begin evaluating our beliefs against our own views of the world. We might be suprised that contradictions exist within our very own thoughts and beliefs. I can't claim to know everything, but I am open to have a discussion. I want my beliefs challenged. Only through testing them, can they be proven one way or another.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Ability, Motivation, Attitude
“Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.” - Lou Holtz
The question for those of us who wonder why we aren't more satisfied or more happy or more successful is: Which one of these things is missing?
The question for those of us who wonder why we aren't more satisfied or more happy or more successful is: Which one of these things is missing?
Saturday, February 13, 2010
No New Taxes
Seems clear enough, right? I think he made his point absolutely clear.
February 11, 2010 - President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit. - Bloomberg News.
Agnostic: One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Why aren't things so clear anymore? Granted, it hasn't happened YET, but when the taxes rise, can we call this anything other than a lie? Time will tell...Actions will tell.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
180 Degrees
Step 1) AIG, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase receive taxpayer bailouts.
Step 2) "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed, Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" - President Barack Obama, March 16, 2009.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/obama_adds_outr.html
Step 3) In response to question about CEO of Goldman Sachs receiving a $9 million bonus and the CEO of JPMorgan Chase receiving a $17 million bonus:
"Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They're very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That's part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we've seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs." - President Barack Obama, February 10, 2010.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/02/obama-i-dont-begrudge-people-success-or-wealth/1
Seems that these two statements made by our President are 180 degrees apart.
Both firms received taxpayer money, yet his language is very different for each situation. It scares me a bit that he says he knows the guys at JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs; is that why he doesn't care that they profit from a taxpayer bailout?
Inconsistencies like this should scare everyone. How can you even know who the man is or if he agrees with your position? It seems like the American people are being played. Don't they realize we have a memory that lasts beyond the end of their speeches?
It's amazing what you find when you pay attention. I see more and more everyday that the waste in our government is bringing the country down. Show me a case where more government has caused economic progress. More government means less freedom and less opportunity...two keys to economic (and by extension, social) progress.
Isn't "progress" what everybody wants? Or is it just what they tell you they want.
How's the saying go?: Deeds, not Words.
Step 2) "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed, Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" - President Barack Obama, March 16, 2009.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/obama_adds_outr.html
Step 3) In response to question about CEO of Goldman Sachs receiving a $9 million bonus and the CEO of JPMorgan Chase receiving a $17 million bonus:
"Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They're very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That's part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we've seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs." - President Barack Obama, February 10, 2010.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/02/obama-i-dont-begrudge-people-success-or-wealth/1
Seems that these two statements made by our President are 180 degrees apart.
Both firms received taxpayer money, yet his language is very different for each situation. It scares me a bit that he says he knows the guys at JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs; is that why he doesn't care that they profit from a taxpayer bailout?
Inconsistencies like this should scare everyone. How can you even know who the man is or if he agrees with your position? It seems like the American people are being played. Don't they realize we have a memory that lasts beyond the end of their speeches?
It's amazing what you find when you pay attention. I see more and more everyday that the waste in our government is bringing the country down. Show me a case where more government has caused economic progress. More government means less freedom and less opportunity...two keys to economic (and by extension, social) progress.
Isn't "progress" what everybody wants? Or is it just what they tell you they want.
How's the saying go?: Deeds, not Words.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The problem with Washington DC
President Obama stated in his first State of the Union Address something to the affect that we "need to restore fiscal discipline and end runaway borrowing." Less than 24 hours later, Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion dollars (meaning that our country can carry up to $14.2 trillion in debt). We will pay something like $500 billion to service our debt.
What is fiscal discipline and runaway borrowing?
I may not have voted for him, but President Obama is leading all of us into to the future, his decisions effect everyone in this country in some way or another. This is especially true as he seeks to increase our reliance on government. Debt spending alone is evidence that the entire country is taking a stake in the programs that this administration is pushing.
Our President claims to the American people that "Washington needs to stop being Washington." This sounds great. It seems to me however, that if Washington is the problem, increasing the size of Washington will simply increase the problems. Under the Obama administration, the federal workforce will be over 2 million people strong...the largest ever federal payroll.
I can't figure out if it is ignorance or intent, but our progressive-led government is taking this country in the opposite direction than the majority want it to go. The more it happens, the harder it is to believe that ignorance is the cause - if this is the intent, it's even more scary.
We don't need to change Washington, we simply need to stop relying on those who continue to disappoint the country and repeatedly fail on countless policy decisions. Our government is filled with elites assuming they know what is best for us, having never been in our shoes, all while failing to spend within any limits and forcing our reliance on their failing systems.
How long do we accept the lies and half-truths of our government? Perhaps we should make our judgements based on actions, instead of words?
I am disturbing myself with some of these thoughts, but I can't see any other conclusions. Ignorance or intent, it is one or the other; both have scary consequences. What else could it be that causes our leaders to so blatantly say one thing and do the opposite?
The bright side is that our basic structure is still in place, and when the American people join together, we can send the momentum in the right direction...up. The idea that we can all live on an equal playing field, with equal results will lead to equal failures every time. Only through the promise of equal opportunity can we truly succeed. Conservatism will lead us there.
Our progressive leaders have blinded themselves, claiming that their failures to pass key legislation like nationalized health care have upset the country. It's not because they have failed, it's because they have tried; and continue to try cramming their ideals onto everyone in this country.
The line between our unalienable rights and personal responsibilities has been totally blurred.
We must pay attention. We must stay educated. We must prepare ourselves for whatever the future holds, not relying on assistance from anyone. Governmental spending is unprecedented in almost every way, yet things aren't getting better. When given the chance, we must be ready to change our course. Change we can believe in perhaps?
What is fiscal discipline and runaway borrowing?
I may not have voted for him, but President Obama is leading all of us into to the future, his decisions effect everyone in this country in some way or another. This is especially true as he seeks to increase our reliance on government. Debt spending alone is evidence that the entire country is taking a stake in the programs that this administration is pushing.
Our President claims to the American people that "Washington needs to stop being Washington." This sounds great. It seems to me however, that if Washington is the problem, increasing the size of Washington will simply increase the problems. Under the Obama administration, the federal workforce will be over 2 million people strong...the largest ever federal payroll.
I can't figure out if it is ignorance or intent, but our progressive-led government is taking this country in the opposite direction than the majority want it to go. The more it happens, the harder it is to believe that ignorance is the cause - if this is the intent, it's even more scary.
We don't need to change Washington, we simply need to stop relying on those who continue to disappoint the country and repeatedly fail on countless policy decisions. Our government is filled with elites assuming they know what is best for us, having never been in our shoes, all while failing to spend within any limits and forcing our reliance on their failing systems.
How long do we accept the lies and half-truths of our government? Perhaps we should make our judgements based on actions, instead of words?
I am disturbing myself with some of these thoughts, but I can't see any other conclusions. Ignorance or intent, it is one or the other; both have scary consequences. What else could it be that causes our leaders to so blatantly say one thing and do the opposite?
The bright side is that our basic structure is still in place, and when the American people join together, we can send the momentum in the right direction...up. The idea that we can all live on an equal playing field, with equal results will lead to equal failures every time. Only through the promise of equal opportunity can we truly succeed. Conservatism will lead us there.
Our progressive leaders have blinded themselves, claiming that their failures to pass key legislation like nationalized health care have upset the country. It's not because they have failed, it's because they have tried; and continue to try cramming their ideals onto everyone in this country.
The line between our unalienable rights and personal responsibilities has been totally blurred.
We must pay attention. We must stay educated. We must prepare ourselves for whatever the future holds, not relying on assistance from anyone. Governmental spending is unprecedented in almost every way, yet things aren't getting better. When given the chance, we must be ready to change our course. Change we can believe in perhaps?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Humor?
Satire: the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
Real-life circumstances often align themselves to provide great jokes. If you want to rib the republicans, Dick Cheney shooting his friend while hunting comes to mind...the possibilities are endless.
I have run across two items recently through various media outlets.
After the liberal Massachusetts voted Scott Brown to the US Senate, Strategists and pundits are claiming that the Democrat party is on crutches.
...then we are presented with a visual...
Real-life circumstances often align themselves to provide great jokes. If you want to rib the republicans, Dick Cheney shooting his friend while hunting comes to mind...the possibilities are endless.
I have run across two items recently through various media outlets.
After the liberal Massachusetts voted Scott Brown to the US Senate, Strategists and pundits are claiming that the Democrat party is on crutches.
...then we are presented with a visual...
Friday, January 15, 2010
Looking Ahead
Yes, this may be a random thought, but it will provide a foundation for future discussions.
I've been thinking about ways to predict the future. There are many claims about what we will deal with in the future; specifically regarding the environment, politics, and economics.
There is one method that will allow us to predict the future with some accuracy.
Step 1) Understand what happened in the past
Step 2) Understand where we are now
Following these two steps, we can see the trends for ourselves and determine the outcome.
Predicting the future does not require a PhD, winning an election, or being certified. It only requires a little honest effort combined with some common sense.
I've been thinking about ways to predict the future. There are many claims about what we will deal with in the future; specifically regarding the environment, politics, and economics.
There is one method that will allow us to predict the future with some accuracy.
Step 1) Understand what happened in the past
Step 2) Understand where we are now
Following these two steps, we can see the trends for ourselves and determine the outcome.
Predicting the future does not require a PhD, winning an election, or being certified. It only requires a little honest effort combined with some common sense.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Justice
Question of the month:
Would you rather be the recipient of "social justice" or "equal justice"?
Some of this might hinge on how you define Justice, but to me the answer is clear. We can't go wrong if everyone is treated equally, yet the progressive left in this country is more concerned about upholding their version of justice; taking from those who disagree and giving to those who do.
Think about it.
Would you rather be the recipient of "social justice" or "equal justice"?
Some of this might hinge on how you define Justice, but to me the answer is clear. We can't go wrong if everyone is treated equally, yet the progressive left in this country is more concerned about upholding their version of justice; taking from those who disagree and giving to those who do.
Think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)