You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2010.
A close friend sent me the attached video today. I think it is a very appropriate tribute to those who have helped preserve our freedoms. Please take two minutes on Memorial Day to view this tribute from the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
One year ago, I posted, “Memorial Day – Fly the Flag and be Thankful.” Due largely to the great graphic it has been among my most popular posts. I am reposting it below. I hope all who read it will take the time to remember the brave men and women who have provided us with the freedoms we enjoy. It is our “Responsibility – Freedom Demands It.”
I am very sad to hear that our President has chosen to campaign for Senator Boxer in California instead of remaining in Washington to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. He will be represented by VP Joe Biden. My understanding is that the last time a President failed to lay the wreath on Memorial Day was in 1992 when George Bush I was represented by VP Dan Quayle. Bush was reportedly playing golf in Kennebunkport, just as bad an affront to the Military and Veterans as Mr. Obama’s plans for this weekend.
From last May:
Today, every American should stop, think and say a prayer for the men and women who have given their lives that we might be free. Whether the World War two hero or the 18 year old who died while standing guard at a base in some far flung outpost in Afghanistan, all veterans should be remembered for their service to our country.
It gives me pause to think that our great nation was built by men and women working in a free and secure environment, one secured by our veterans. No other nation in the world has contributed as much to improve the lot of man. This has happened because our people have been free to realize their potential like no other people before them.
I hope our leaders will respect the efforts of our fallen heros. I hope they have the wisdom to help preserve our hard-earned freedoms.
I know. I’m basically conservative so I am supposed to be a hawk. I’m not supposed to question what is spent by the DoD.
If you like to stereotype, that would fit. If you have read my About post, you will appreciate that I am more fiscally conservative than socially conservative. I do not like our government spending more money than it takes in, even when it comes to money for one of the key things we hire a government to do – keep us secure.
My question is not so much about the size of the DoD budget. It is about spending money for things we don’t use. Think about buying a great alarm system for your house or car and never powering it up. Or how about buying the best auto or home insurance available at any cost and then never making a claim when you have a loss. That just doesn’t make sense.
Neither does it make sense for us to have sophisticated naval weapons systems like an aircraft carrier and its escort ships and neuter them by requiring them to get Presidential permission to fire their weapons or launch their planes. Reportedly on April 21, an Iranian aircraft hovered off the side of the USS Eisenhower in the Gulf and gathered intelligence on the ship for over 20 minutes. The US ship did nothing. It didn’t scramble fighters. It didn’t fire warning shots. And of course, it did not shoot down the spying aircraft that was within range of almost every weapon system onboard, officer’s side arms included.
Not until a week later did the Navy mention the incident to the public, and that only after numerous Gulf States (Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE) all wondered publicly just how high the threat level would need to be for the Americans to respond. Then, the official explanation from the CNO was a lame, ” The Iranians were not provocative or threatening.”
Why did we do nothing? Why do we spend all that money? If we aren’t going to use the tools, why buy them in the first place? It appears the Obama Administration wants to tell the world that we are all bark and no bite. That doesn’t sound like very wise strategy to me. Why don’t we just put up a big sign on each piece of our military equipment that says, “Don’t worry. It’s just for show.”
I enjoyed a recent post at the FMJ blog that echoed this thought, “And our military is still the strongest and best in the world. Using our military power where and when appropriate is not arrogance. It’s common sense. Pip squeak potentates in smaller and weaker countries would like to reduce us to their level by promising to sit down and sing kumbaya. The current administration might buy that, but I do not. I believe in diplomacy as much as anyone else. But when diplomacy fails, we are faced with a “kill or be killed” or “take or be taken” world.”
It seems to me either we continue to build and maintain the world’s most effective military and use it as a powerful piece in our diplomatic toolbox, or, we stop wasting the money on the military if we and the entire world know that we will never use it. What do you think?
In 1993, President Clinton signed into law the “Motor Voter” Act. It went a long way to make it easier for people to register to vote. In 2004, Wesley v. Cox, a Federal Judge confirmed that under “Motor Voter” individuals and groups had the right to engage in organized voter registration activity at times and locations of their choosing, without the presence or permission of state or local election officials. Does that sound like a great opportunity for voter registration fraud? It sure does to me. If you want an example, see this article. It shows how a newspaper registered a fictitious name just to show how easy it was to do. Another article shows how easy it is to register voters regardless of whether it is for political or monitary gain.
Starting in Monterrey, California in 1977, various governments have experimented with “Vote by Mail” schemes. In 1995, Oregon became the first state to have an election where all votes were by mail. Proponents say it has many advantages. It costs (the state) less than having polling places set up and manned. It makes it easier for voters since they only need fill out and mail a ballot rather than getting to a polling place and physically voting. To me the disadvantages are overwhelming. The cost is transferred to those who vote (postage stamp required on ballot envelope). That is not a real big deal, though, their are those who feel it amounts to a polling tax. What is a big deal – HUGE, actually - is that there is virtually no control over who actually votes the ballot that is sent in the mail. Again, this is a great opportunity for Voter Fraud.
Think of the coercion of an abusive spouse forcing his/her spouse to vote his way. or else. What about the boss who says if you want to keep your job, you will bring your ballot in for me to help you vote. The possibilities are endless and I have no doubt that many an election has been swayed by fraudulent votes produced by Motor Voter and Vote by Mail schemes. I have found no information about voter fraud cases that do not include abuse of registration by mail, or, voting by mail (mostly absentee ballots).
In a Wall Street Journal article in 2006, one form of mail vote fraud was discussed: “”It’s so easy to cheat you’d be surprised who’s been caught at it. In 1998, former congressman Austin Murphy of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, was convicted of absentee-ballot fraud in a nursing home, where residents’ failing mental capacities make them an easy mark. “In this area there’s a pattern of nursing home administrators frequently forging ballots under residents’ names,” Sean Cavanagh, a former Democratic county supervisor from the area, told me. He says that many nursing home owners rely on regular “bounties” from candidates whom they allow to enter their facilities and harvest votes.”
I find it hard to imagine that if someone came into the county clerk’s office to register to vote that he or she could register as Minnie or Mickey Mouse or Luke Skywalker. Similar registrations are reported to have been done by mail on numerous occasions.
No, this is not one of the posts in the 20-40 series, but I would like to hear a candidate get serious about this matter. What is wrong with considering photo i.d. to vote? Or to register? Why shouldn’t people take the effort to vote at a polling place where their privacy and security can be assured?
In general, I am a believer in State’s Rights. In this case, I think we would benefit from a National Standard. What do you think?
This post fits with the 20 Issues – 40 Weeks Series, but, since it was not on my list of 19 + 1 that I originally posted, I have decided to slip it in here.
The title was, of course, intended to get your attention. But, surprisingly, it is not the least bit deceptive. I could and would support a candidate who campaigned for a policy of drug legalization. Rather than explain why it makes sense, I will ask a few questions that I hope will create a bit of discussion.
1. Are elicit drugs and their non-medical use generating a large portion of the criminal activity in the USA?
2. Is there a large population in the United States who have chosen to disregard the laws and who use drugs in ways which are outside the law?
3. If our governments were to legalize drug use and tax it, would our expenses to control the elicit trade go down and our revenue to enforce the laws go up?
4. Are there parallels between our current drug laws (bans against possession and use) and “Prohibition”?
5. Did Prohibition work better or worse than our current laws at stopping the activity it banned?
If your answers to these questions are the same as mine, you may agree with me. It would seem that legalizing drug use, but controlling it through laws and taxation similar to the way we handle alcohol would:
1. Lower crime;
2. Increase government revenue to fight crime;
3. Decrease pressure on our borders;
4. Not dramatically change the amount of use of elicit drugs.
In short, is it possible that our current drug policies have limited supplies and driven up prices to the point where more people have incentives to produce and distribute drugs (outside the law) than would be the case if drugs were legal and taxed?
Would you vote for a candidate who supported a drug legalization plan?
What do you think?
I apologize in advance for the delay in responding to many reader comments over the past few weeks. I have not made the time available to get to this task though I have wanted to.
There have recently been three comments to the post “20-40 (Issue 6) The Economy/Commerce“. All three were worthy of a response so here goes:
First, thanks, Shirley, for continuing to read and comment. I appreciate your feedback.
Second, thanks to Sir Burton. I will put Carrol Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” on my list. Just don’t quiz me on in for quite a while as I am about three books behind and not reading much until I get caught up with business and growing things.
Last a response to JSV. I must stipulate that JSV is far better read than I on the topic and writes more eloquently. However, I feel I have a more real world experience. We also view the issue with eyes separated by 32 years of age, he being half my age.
It is hard to argue with JSV’s point that the real problem is the hierarchial structure of bureaucracies, whether governmental or not. “While I know you’re currently focused on addressing multiple issues prior to the upcoming elections, I suggest that focusing on this issue and its cause would highlight the derivative nature of the other issues on your list as well as the long-term/big-picture irrelevancy of this fall’s elections…” This statement is where our views part ways – not in the truth of it, but in the value of the statement as seen from my view rather than his.
For argument’s sake, let us assume that at 64, I will live another 17.72 years (per government actuary life tables). Under our current system, assuming no government collapse and relative continuity in form and function of our government, that would include 8 more Congressional elections and 4 more Presidential elections. For a 32 year old, those same tables say he will live another 45.02 years, or 22 Congressional Elections and 11 for President. Those elections, in my view, not JSV’s, are opportunities for the voting public to influence the direction of government.
My view, based on my timeline, is that if I am a responsible citizen, my votes will help limit our government. If I had a timeline of 45 years, I might see (“long-term/big-picture”) bigger possibilities in changing the system as it appears JSV does. As a hardwired optimist, I believe that the opportunity exists to make meaningful change through the ballot box. I think that JSV’s argument is that it is not possible to make meaningful change at the ballot box or that it is a charade and nothing will change the forces of what I call the bureaucratic cancer. I think my experience makes me a bit more pragmatic or, maybe, shortsighted. I think that in my lifetime, I can still effect things that will make my life (and hopefully most others) better. That, by the way, is another huge topic we might someday tackle – what makes a life better?
Consider that in the past 17.72 years, political leaders of all stripes have accomplished (voted for and taken credit for actions/laws, etc. that have been major factors in) the following:
1. The National Debt is up from about $4 Trillion (64% of GDP) to today’s approximately $12.5 Trillion (about 86% of GDP)
2. In inflation adjusted dollars, our Federal government will spend $3.7 Trillion in 2010 and will have revenue of $2.2 Trillion (that is spending about 168% of earnings). 17.72 years ago, the Federal Government spent $2 Trillion and collected $1.7 (that is 117% of earnings)
3. In 1992 (17.72 years ago) the USA had just under 22 million people employed in manufacturing and construction and just over 18 million in government employment. Today there are just over 20 million in construction/manufacturing, and, about 22 million working for government. Go back 45.02 years and the government employed 12 million and construction/manufacturing 22 million.
If you assume that it would be good to return each of these indicators to the numbers 17.72 years ago or 45.02 years ago, you begin to see my point. In the next 17+ years it is more practical for me to work to elect people who will make decisions that will make our national debt smaller, will lower Federal Government Spending, and will have fewer people on Government payrolls.
It is also more practical for me because I am directly affected more by government actions than many people are. If you have a job that is minimally or slowly effected by our government’s actions, like government jobs, service sector jobs, etc. you don’t see the big swings in your prosperity based on government action. It is different if you are a farmer or a manufacturer. For example, new legislation proposed in Congress, if passed, will effectively prohibit wineries/vineyards from selling wines across state lines without going through distributors. This is great for the distributors (who are lobbying hard to get/keep this monopoly. It means bankruptcy for hundreds of small wine producers who can’t afford the middlemen. Who knows? This may be a good thing in the log run or make no difference in the long run. But, tell that to the vineyard owner who loses everything he has worked for over a lifetime because of a ‘simple law’ passed by elected officials.
So my reply to JSV’s comment is that his point is a good one but impractical for me and a huge percentage of our population. I will continue to vote and try to elect people who will work to limit government.
Having said that, you may be very surprised with my next two posts on 20-40 – Energy and 20-40 Crime and Punishment.
This is issue #6 in the series (20 Issues – 40 Weeks) on what we need to look for in our candidates for office this November:
Regardless what the government does or what happens to our economy, life will go on. People will continue to find the things they need to survive: food, water, shelter. So why all the fear and panic about runaway inflation, systemic collapse of our financial systems, our economy, etc.?
I think the answer is easy. We all resist change. Nobody wants to go backwards. If our economy goes to pieces and we end up with, say, 25% unemployment like at the height of the Depression of the 30s, we will not be happy. We want to avoid that pain and suffering.
What can your elected officials do to improve the economy, increase job opportunities, and help prevent economic collapse? Why should we carefully choose those who will govern us based on what they can and will do to help increase job opportunities and improve our economy? In my opinion, we need to elect people who understand business and economics so that we don’t continue to get government policy that raises the cost (monetary, physical, and emotional) of doing business. We need people who will resist the urge to regulate markets and limit profits. Without profit incentive, our real economy will go away. Since the government agencies are all but immune from economic realities (need more money for a special project, just raise taxes and fees), they will be more secure places to work. No one will want to work for anyone but government agencies.
I guess my bottom line is that we need to ensure that private business is a much larger percentage of our economy than government. Current trends, under current government leadership, show that government will continue to grow much faster than business. That is an unsustainable trend. At some point, 100% of the profits from private enterprise could be confiscated by government and it still would not cover the cost of all the government’s activities.
My view is that we have two choices. Either we create incentives to encourage economic activity or we remove barriers to economic activity. I actually think we need to do both, but, to me the most important is removing barriers. In almost 40 years of experience in business, I have seen more innovation and enterprise stalled by government barriers than is encouraged by (government) incentives.
Let me give you an example of government action that causes a burden to business but which could be simply overcome by government action. If I hire someone for my business, by law I must ensure that the person has the legal right to work in this country. It is my job as a private citizen to “catch” an illegal alien. I must prove that the person I am hiring is legal through a government system called “e-verify.” I also have to fill out a form I-9 witnessing that I have seen appropriate documentation from the potential employee to prove he or she has the legal right to work here. This is not a huge barrier. It does take time to learn the system, but not much. It has penalties that make you wonder if hiring that next person will land you in jail.
On the other hand, State government agencies issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens every day and I never hear of State licensing bureaus being raided for making it easy for illegal aliens to get documentation and licenses. Wouldn’t it make sense for State and Federal Agencies to do this screening rather than private individuals? We assume that protecting our borders and administering an immigration system is a government function, yet, we require private business to do the policing. Does this make sense?
Just for fun, go to the Small Business Administration site where they offer help in compliance with government mandates before starting a business. Or go to the official business link to the U.S. Government and see how much fun it will be to start a business. I particularly like the checklist offered to help you “Stay Compliant with Laws” which includes: “Advertising Law, Employment and Labor Law, Environmental Regulations, Exit a Business, Finance Law, Patents, Trademarks, Copyright, Online Business, Privacy Laws, the Uniform Commercial Code, Workplace Safety and Health Laws, etc. In my opinion, the Small Business Administration spends a good deal of its time and your money just trying to help businesses overcome the burden of government overregulation. What do you think?
Long story short – I want to see us elect people who have experience in business and understand how government actions stifle economic activity. I want people who will work to remove government barriers to doing business. Markets and competition do a good job of showing the true cost of any good or service. The same cannot be said for Governments and price controls. Politicians with big egos believe they are smarter than the voice of millions of people who make up markets. I think and history proves they are wrong. We need to elect more humble servants of the people, not more egotists bent on proving (to themselves) that they are better than those who have elected them. I think it is our responsibility to do this.
At the trade show, I met a father and son from Britain who were working a booth near ours. Before the show opens each day there is usually time to meet the folks manning neighboring booths. This twosome had been called to duty to man the booth of their American Company because the Americans who planned to man the booth were stuck on the ground in the USA (due to the ash cloud from the Icelandic volcano.) They had driven 19 hours straight-through to make it in time to set up and work the show.
One morning waiting for the show to open the father asked me why our country would want to copy a disastrous system like Britain’s National Health Service. His son chimed in that it really wasn’t that bad, hadn’t he had good treatment for his appendix just last year. The father responded that emergency care is reasonable if you are near a facility. He then asked his son what he thought of the treatment his mother got. The son sort of nodded and said his dad was right that the service had failed her. The story that unfolded was of a healthy woman going in for stomach pain, being told to go home and take antacids. When she returned, the doctor said he would set up some tests to see if it was anything more serious. That took a couple of months of waiting in line. By then she was experiencing quite a bit of pain. The tests were inconclusive so ultrasound was done. A tumor was found on her liver. In spite of the (reported by the father to me) fact that about 90% of liver tumors are malignant, it took three more months to get an MRI scheduled. By that time they scheduled surgery to remove what turned out to be benign. He said they should have saved the money on the MRI since by the time she got the MRI she would have been long dead had it been malignant. She then waited more months to have the tumor removed and the symptoms stopped.
I know this is anecdotal evidence but they told more horror stories and even the son (who didn’t think it was a big deal that healthcare had been nationalized) admitted that the only people he knew who did not complain about the NHS were young like himself and needed little if any health care services.
What was so surprising to me was that I had mentioned nothing about health care or politics. I asked questions about their business and their economy. The father just felt the need to tell me how stupid he thought the Americans were to take the “best medical treatment in the world” (my best recollection of his words, not a true quote) and make it like one of the worst.
Latest comments: