Let’s Keep the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy

"History is not going to be kind to liberals. With their mindless programs, they've managed to do to Black Americans what slavery, Reconstruction, and rank racism found impossible: destroy their family and work ethic." — Walter Williams

ABC News reported on December 16, 2010; ” The stress of being the gay soldier who publicly challenged the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law — facing the inevitable scrutiny that comes with being an activist — may have become too much for Lt. Dan Choi. Last Friday, 29-year-old Choi was admitted to the psychiatric ward at the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Brockton, Mass., telling supporters in an e-mail that he had experienced a "breakdown and anxiety attack."

“Those close to Choi said he would likely be released today or Friday. He did not return telephone calls and e-mails from ABCNews.com.”

“Choi, who had chained himself to the White House fence three times in protest of the law that bans gays from openly serving in the military, said all veterans carry "human burdens."

“He wrote on friend Pam Spaulding's website, Pam's House Blend, that he had been betrayed by "elected leaders and gay organizations as well as many who have exploited my name."

“When ABC Radio contacted Choi in his hospital room Wednesday, Choi said only, "It's not easy," sounding glum, according to reporter Steve Portnoy.”

According to the  Huffington Post Choi wrote Pam’s House Blend Blog; “I did not initially want to publicize this but I now realize it is critical for our community to know several things: veterans gay or straight carry human burdens, Activists share similar burdens, no activist should be portrayed as super human, and the failures of government and national lobbying carry consequences far beyond the careers and reputations of corporate leaders, elected officials, High powered lobbyists, or political elites. They ruin lives. My breakdown was a result of a cumulative array of stressors but there is no doubt that the composite betrayals felt on Thursday, by elected leaders and gay organizations as well as many who have exploited my name for their marketing purposes have added to the result. I am certain my experience is not an isolated incident within the gay veteran community."

“At the same time, those who have been closest to me know that I truly appreciate their gracious help and mentorship. I am indebted to their hospitality and leadership.”

Poor Dan Choi. Like Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin, who faced a military courts martial and was found guilty of disobeying orders to deploy to Afghanistan, Choi is a pawn of those with agendas that do not consider their welfare.

In Lakin’s case is was his refusal to deploy because he believed the Commander-in-Chief, Barak Obama, could not issue a legitimate order due to questions about his birth certificate. He was pushed into this by his belief in the “birther movement”.

The Huffington Post report of December 15 states; “An Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questioned President Barack Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief told a jury Wednesday he was wrong to do so and would now deploy if he could. Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo. was speaking during a court martial hearing Wednesday at Fort Meade.”

“He faces up to 3 1/2 years in a military prison and dismissal from the Army after being found guilty of missing a flight that would have gotten him to his eventual deployment and pleading guilty to disobeying orders to meet with a superior and to report to Fort Campbell in Kentucky. He asked the jury to let him remain in the Army when it decides his punishment, and jurors are expected to begin deliberating on his sentence on Thursday.”

"I don't want it to end this way," said Lakin, a 17-year veteran of the Army. "I want to continue to serve."

“Under questioning by his defense attorney, Neal Puckett, Lakin expressed remorse for disobeying orders. He said he now understands that the Army cannot answer his question about Obama's eligibility to be president and that it was not the appropriate place to raise the issue. "I was wrong for trying to push this issue within the Army," he said.”

Choi’s case is similar in that he decided to ignore the military’s DADT policy and “tell” in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, a self proclaimed lesbian, that he was a homosexual. Since then he has been an activist for abolishing of DADT. He has appeared on left-leaning shows and participated in demonstrations even to the extent of chaining himself to the fence around the White House. To this date no action has been taken against Choi for his actions.

The Military Times, a liberal Gannett publication favoring inclusion of professed homosexuals in the military, released an astonishing poll of active-duty subscribers. Results of the 2008 annual survey indicate that success for that cause essentially would destroy the volunteer force.

As in previous years, the annual Military Times Poll reveals that approximately 58% of respondents are opposed to efforts to repeal what the survey described as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.” The catchphrase incorrectly labels the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, which clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to be in the military.

This is poll, and others of active military personnel, contradicts the reported 67% approval rate of abolishing DADT by the general public. The Defense Department sent out 400,000 questionnaires to military families asking if DADT should be repealed. The response was mixed with troops serving combat were not in favor of repeal, but those not in combat favored the repeal. The interesting fact of the poll was that only 150,000 questionnaires were returned. Perhaps 250,000 did not want to go on record with their views.

Ann Coulter writes in World Net Daily; “Even more absurdly, the Pentagon polled all military "personnel" – and their spouses! Only a small portion of what is known as "the military" actually does the fighting. The rest is a vast bureaucracy along the lines of the DMV.”

“Today's military features "victim advocates" and sensitivity training facilitators, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services personnel and a million other goo-goo positions. How did we ever take the shores of Normandy without a phalanx of "sensitivity training" counselors?”

“No one has any need to be reassured that the military's "social action" staff will enjoy working with gays. Whatever a career in "social action" entails, it better be gay-friendly. Frankly, it's appalling the Pentagon's poll of all military personnel and their families didn't produce better numbers for the gays.”

Coulter continues; “There are far more discharges for pregnancy and "parenthood" than for homosexuality. In the past five years, less than 1 percent of all unplanned military discharges (i.e. not due to retirement or completion of service) were for homosexuality.
Here's a record of the discharges for 2008, according to the Defense Department:

• Drugs: 5,627
• Serious offenses: 3,817
• Weight standards: 4,555
• Pregnancy: 2,353
• Parenthood: 2,574
• Homosexuality: 634

The main lesson from these figures isn't that we should have gays openly serving in the military, but that we need to get girls out of the military, inasmuch as they are constantly being discharged for pregnancy, parenthood and weight issues.

The DADT issue is just the first shot by those who want to destroy our military and its fighting capabilities. Following Cloward & Piven’s strategy of creating enough chaos to collapse the system these left-wing, anti-military groups will continue to press for more chaotic changes in the military until it is no longer an effective fighting force.

We already have women in combat situations, which cause men to think more of saving the woman than completing the mission. We will soon have women on submarines, a condition that no doubt will create tensions, where tensions are not needed. Special diets will be next — kosher, halal, vegan or no salt. Then will come diversities in the dress code — piercing will be allowed for those who want to express their individuality. If homosexual men can take showers with other men and ogle them than straight men should have the same right of showering with women and vice versa. No doubt this will coming down the pike in the future.

The military is not a democracy and it is not an extension of civilian life. Many of the rights civilian have under the Constitution are not honored in the military. The military has their own unique set of laws and rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As example the UCMJ does not permit criticisms of the commander-in chief or superior officers to the extent the First Amendment of the Bill or Rights does. Political speech is not protected in the military.

As long as this is an all volunteer military force those who wish to serve, for whatever reason should understand that the military is not civilian life and for reasons of discipline and cohesion the  same rules do not apply.

From Kitty Hawk to the Edge of the Solar System

“Congress shall have power……To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;” — 8th enumerated power, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Today marks the 107th anniversary of powered flight. On December 17, 1903, near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, Orville and Wilbur Wright made the first successful flight in history of a self-propelled, heavier-than-air aircraft. Orville piloted the gasoline-powered, propeller-driven biplane, which stayed aloft for 12 seconds and covered 120 feet on its inaugural flight.

Orville and Wilbur Wright grew up in Dayton, Ohio, and developed an interest in aviation after learning of the glider flights of the German engineer Otto Lilienthal in the 1890s. Unlike their older brothers, Orville and Wilbur did not attend college, but they possessed extraordinary technical ability and a sophisticated approach to solving problems in mechanical design. They built printing presses and in 1892 opened a bicycle sales and repair shop. Soon, they were building their own bicycles, and this experience, combined with profits from their various businesses, allowed them to pursue actively their dream of building the world's first airplane.

After exhaustively researching other engineers' efforts to build a heavier-than-air, controlled aircraft, the Wright brothers wrote the U.S. Weather Bureau inquiring about a suitable place to conduct glider tests. They settled on Kitty Hawk, an isolated village on North Carolina's Outer Banks, which offered steady winds and sand dunes from which to glide and land softly. Their first glider, tested in 1900, performed poorly, but a new design, tested in 1901, was more successful. Later that year, they built a wind tunnel where they tested nearly 200 wings and airframes of different shapes and designs. The brothers' systematic experimentations paid off — they flew hundreds of successful flights in their 1902 glider at Kill Devils Hills near Kitty Hawk. Their biplane glider featured a steering system, based on a movable rudder that solved the problem of controlled flight. They were now ready for powered flight.

In Dayton, they designed a 12-horsepower internal combustion engine with the assistance of machinist Charles Taylor and built a new aircraft to house it. They transported their aircraft in pieces to Kitty Hawk in the autumn of 1903, assembled it, made a few further tests, and on December 14 Orville made the first attempt at powered flight. The engine stalled during take-off and the plane was damaged, and they spent three days repairing it. Then at 10:35 a.m. on December 17, in front of five witnesses, the aircraft ran down a monorail track and into the air, staying aloft for 12 seconds and flying 120 feet. The modern aviation age was born. Three more tests were made that day, with Wilbur and Orville alternately flying the airplane. Wilbur flew the last flight, covering 852 feet in 59 seconds.

During the next few years, the Wright brothers further developed their airplanes but kept a low profile about their successes in order to secure patents and contracts for their flying machines. By 1905, their aircraft could perform complex maneuvers and remain aloft for up to 39 minutes at a time. In 1908, they traveled to France and made their first public flights, arousing widespread public excitement. In 1909, the U.S. Army's Signal Corps purchased a specially constructed plane, and the brothers founded the Wright Company to build and market their aircraft. Wilbur Wright died of typhoid fever in 1912; Orville lived until 1948.

The historic Wright brothers' aircraft of 1903 is on permanent display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.

December 13, 2010, a mere 107 years later, NASA announced that; “The 33-year odyssey of NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft has reached a distant point at the edge of our solar system where there is no outward motion of solar wind.”

Now hurtling toward interstellar space some 17.4 billion kilometers (10.8 billion miles) from the sun, Voyager 1 has crossed into an area where the velocity of the hot ionized gas, or plasma, emanating directly outward from the sun has slowed to zero. Scientists suspect the solar wind has been turned sideways by the pressure from the interstellar wind in the region between stars.

The event is a major milestone in Voyager 1's passage through the heliosheath, the turbulent outer shell of the sun's sphere of influence, and the spacecraft's upcoming departure from our solar system.

"The solar wind has turned the corner," said Ed Stone, Voyager project scientist based at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif. "Voyager 1 is getting close to interstellar space."

Our sun gives off a stream of charged particles that form a bubble known as the heliosphere around our solar system. The solar wind travels at supersonic speed until it crosses a shockwave called the termination shock. At this point, the solar wind dramatically slows down and heats up in the heliosheath.

Launched on Sept. 5, 1977, Voyager 1 crossed the termination shock in December 2004 into the heliosheath. Scientists have used data from Voyager 1's Low-Energy Charged Particle Instrument to deduce the solar wind's velocity. When the speed of the charged particles hitting the outward face of Voyager 1 matched the spacecraft's speed, researchers knew that the net outward speed of the solar wind was zero. This occurred in June, when Voyager 1 was about 17 billion kilometers (10.6 billion miles) from the sun.

In 107 years man has gone from a 12 second 120 foot powered flight to 10.8 billion miles from the sun. During this period we have walked on the surface of the moon, explored our solar system’s planets and moon with orbiting spacecraft, developed a space shuttle that can orbit the earth and return, and placed a space station in orbit around earth.

Most of this was done under the leadership of the United States with monies funded from the taxpayers through Congress. Funding of scientific investigations is a legitimate function of Congress as one of the enumerated powers decreed them under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

On May 25, 1961 then President John F. Kennedy announced before a joint session of Congress; “………Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides--time for a great new American enterprise--time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.”

“I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:”

“First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively; it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.”

“New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.”

I was 25 years old when Kennedy made this bold commitment. It was four years after the Soviet Union had launched its Sputnik — the first man-made object to orbit the earth. People in the United States were in shock that the USSR, our mortal Cold War adversary, could beat us into space. Americans believed we should be the ones to dominate the space race.

Kennedy’s bold proclamation was not meet with enthusiastic support throughout the land. On the right, the so called “hawks”, supported the Kennedy space proposal because they believed we needed to keep ahead of the USSR and it would be good for the booming defense industry. Senators and Congressmen with large defense contractors in their states or districts like “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA) were enthusiastic supporters — Jackson had Boeing.

The critics on the left, the “bleeding hearts”, had the usual complaints. Why spend money to go to the moon when we have all of these problems right here at home. We have poverty. Why not spend it on education? How about money for medical research — a cure for cancer? This will only make the defense contractors rich. It will escalate the Cold War and upset the Soviets. These were the major themes of the detractors from the left. As always they were wrong.

Yes, some defense contractors like Boeing, Convair, Lockheed, Martin-Marietta, McDonald-Douglas and others did get wealthy from the space program, but so did their stockholders. The moon program gave birth to many small contractors that built the little parts needed by the big prime contractors. Millions of jobs were created in to support the program — good paying jobs, jobs that would eventually spin off into other areas of our economy. This was the best way to help the poor.

The critics and probably the supporters could not have possibly seen the spin off industries and technical and scientific advancements that would accrue from the space program. The advances in electronics, computers, medicine and medical devices, communications, satellites that would predict weather and spy on our enemies, navigation (GPS), aviation, and logistics management are just a few of the benefits derived from Kennedy’s program.

It was on the order of Roosevelt’s building of the Panama Canal and Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway programs. These were legitimate government expenditures that brought about great benefits to our society and created wealth through jobs. Today the interstate highway system carries goods and passengers across the nation safely and efficiently — a system we could never afford today. It has created millions of jobs and thousands of small businesses. Likewise the space program has touched all Americans in their everyday life. Almost every bit of technology you touch can be traced back to the space program.

While the investment by the government was high at the beginning of the program it was well worth it. Yes, it created government jobs and NASA has become an over bloated bureaucracy today, but the industries and jobs created by the program far outweigh the negative. Almost every profession has benefited from the technical and scientific advances of the space program.

There two other benefits, perhaps the greater, that are harder to quantify. The first is knowledge. Man has built his civilization on accumulated knowledge. Copernicus and Galileo could not have envisioned solar wind, but their studies laid the groundwork for Voyager I. The volumes of knowledge gained from the space program has contributed to all aspects of our lives including space, our solar system, medicine, climate and communications to name a few. This knowledge will build on itself as we advance in our civilization.

Second is national pride. In 1977 my wife and I were in Paris, France visiting friends, Their 12 year-old boy Vincent was enthralled with the U.S. space program. He thought we were the greatest nation on the face of the earth because we could go to the moon and had made models of all of the rockets to date. Our ability to go into space gave a sense of national pride that was good for the nation. It gave us a sense of self and what we were capable off. Somewhere along the way we have lost this sense of national pride to a malaise of doubt and guilt for our accomplishments. This is attributable to the whining and recriminations of the left. They still believe that government monies should go to fight poverty and fund more useless and failed education programs.

We constantly bemoan a war on poverty, as war that we are not winning. This is far from true. First of all poverty is not an enemy, it’s a condition caused by a lack of wealth. Poverty can only be eliminated through the accumulation of wealth, not by government programs.

Wealth is acquired by providing goods and services (labor) to those who see value in the goods or services and have the ability to pay for them. Wealth is not acquired from government checks. It’s the biblical adage that if you feed a man a fish he will eat for a day, but if you teach him to fish he will eat for life. The only problem with this is that he has to learn to fish for the proper fish in the right place. If he fishes for carp and the public is buying salmon he made feed himself carp for the rest of life, but he will not gain wealth. The space program gave millions of Americans an opportunity to gain wealth in knowledge, financial gain and national pride.

The Immoral Estate Tax

“We have to realize that this country in its private sector has been fighting the most successful war on poverty the world has ever seen for the last two hundred years." — President Ronald Reagan

Today is the 237th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. On the night of December 16, 1773 (yes Sarah Palin was correct it was 1773, not 1776 as some pinheaded elites in the liberal press claimed) a group of Massachusetts colonists disguised as Mohawk Indians board three British tea ships and dump 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor.

The midnight raid, popularly known as the "Boston Tea Party," was in protest of the British Parliament's Tea Act of 1773, a bill designed to save the faltering East India Company by greatly lowering its tea tax and granting it a virtual monopoly on the American tea trade. The low tax allowed the East India Company to undercut even tea smuggled into America by Dutch traders, and many colonists viewed the act as another example of taxation tyranny.

When three tea ships, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor, and the Beaver, arrived in Boston Harbor, the colonists demanded that the tea be returned to England. After Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused, Patriot leader Samuel Adams organized the "tea party" with about 60 members of the Sons of Liberty, his underground resistance group. The British tea dumped in Boston Harbor on the night of December 16 was valued at some $18,000.

Parliament, outraged by the blatant destruction of British property, enacted the Coercive Acts, also known as the Intolerable Acts, in 1774. The Coercive Acts closed Boston to merchant shipping, established formal British military rule in Massachusetts, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America, and required colonists to quarter British troops. The colonists subsequently called the first Continental Congress to consider a united American resistance to the British. From this action our revolution for independence from the British Crown began. It is also the driving force behind today’s “Tea Party.”

Today Congress is embroiled over the extension of the “Bush Tax Rates” for another two years. One of the main sticking points is the extension of the current estate tax (otherwise known as the death tax). At the insistence of Republicans, the plan includes an estate tax that would allow the first $10 million of a couple's estate to pass to heirs without taxation. The balance would be subject to a 35 percent tax rate.

Fox News reports; “Many House Democrats want to impose a higher estate tax, bringing back the levels in place in 2009. They persuaded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to allow a vote on the change, arguing that the higher estate tax would affect only 6,600 of the wealthiest estates, and would save $23 billion. In 2009, individuals could pass $3.5 million to their heirs, tax-free. Couples could pass $7 million, with a little tax planning, and the balance was taxed at a top rate of 45 percent.”

“The estate tax was allowed to expire altogether for 2010. But under current law, it would come back in 2011 at even higher levels, with a top tax rate of 55 percent and an exclusion rate of $1 million. Democrats said their plan to reinstate the 2009 tax is still more generous than current law; many Republicans said the estate tax should be done away with altogether.”

Until recently, estate taxes were the almost exclusive headache of the super rich, their tax attorneys, and their estate planners. But a strong economy, an ever-widening distribution of wealth--both good things--coupled with tax policy that has failed to keep up with economic growth have extended the reach of estate taxes well into middle-class America.

Estate taxes are not a new phenomenon; they date back almost three thousand years. As early as 700 B.C., there appears to have been a 10 percent tax on the transfer of property at death in Egypt.1 In the first century A.D., Augustus Caesar imposed a tax on successions and legacies to all but close relatives.

Transfer taxes during the Middle Ages grew out of the fact that the sovereign or the state owned all assets. Although the king owned all real property in feudal England, he would grant its use to certain individuals during their lifetimes. When they died, the king would let the estate retain the property upon payment of an estate tax.

In the United States, the tradition of taxing assets at death began with the Stamp Act of 1797. While the first Stamp Act on tea helped precipitate the Revolutionary War, the second was far less dramatic. Revenues from requiring a federal stamp on wills in probate were used to pay off debts incurred during the undeclared naval war with France in 1794. Congress repealed the Stamp Act in 1802.

That set a pattern for the next hundred years or so in which estate taxes were used as a sporadic, and temporary, way to finance wars. When hostilities ceased, the tax was repealed.

To help finance the Civil War, the Tax Act of 1862 imposed a federal inheritance tax. As costs mounted, the Congress increased the inheritance tax rates and added a succession tax in 1864. When the need for added revenue subsided after the war, the inheritance tax was repealed in 1870.

In 1874, a taxpayer challenged the legality of the Civil War estate taxes, arguing they were direct taxes that, under the Constitution, must be apportioned among the states according to the census. The Supreme Court disagreed saying that direct taxes pertained to capitation taxes and taxes on land, houses, and other permanent real estate.

In the early 20th century, worldwide conflict cut into trade tariffs--a mainstay of federal revenues--and Congress turned to another revenue source. The Revenue Act of 1916, which introduced the modern-day income tax, also contained an estate tax with many features of today's system. After an exemption of $50,000 (over $11 million in terms of today's wealth), tax rates started at 1 percent and climbed to 10 percent on estates over $5 million (over $1 billion in terms of today's wealth). Estate taxes were increased in 1917 as the U.S. entered World War I.

However, this time the estate tax did not go away after the war ended. Despite sizable budget surpluses, Congress increased rates and introduced a gift tax in 1924. Like the estate tax, the gift tax is a levy on the transfer of property from one person to another. During the 1920s through the 1940s, estate taxes were used as another way to attempt to redistribute income. Tax rates of up to 77 percent on the largest estates were supposed to prevent wealth becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few.

While the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 overhauled the federal income tax, it made a seemingly minor structural change to estate taxation. Specifically, it expanded the tax base to include most life insurance proceeds, which could substantially raise an estate's tax bill.

During the late 1960s and early 1970s loophole closing preoccupied tax reformers. These efforts culminated in a 1976 tax bill that overhauled estate taxation, giving us the system we still have today. Perhaps the biggest change was combining the previously separate exemptions for estate and gift taxes and transforming them into a single, unified estate and gift tax credit.

The 1981 tax bill brought some relief. The top rate went from 70 percent to 50 percent, and an increase in the unified credit took a lot of smaller estates--those under $600,000--off the tax rolls. But, after that, the search for revenue to close budget deficits led to more than a decade of bills that largely increased estate taxes.

In 1997, Congress provided some relief with the first increase in the unified credit since 1987. Gradual increases, which began in 1999, are slated to raise the unified credit to $1 million by 2006.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Bush tax cuts) was the first step toward totally eliminating the death tax. It provided for a scheduled phase-out of rates and an increase in the unified credit, finally repealing the tax for calendar year 2010. Unfortunately, the provisions sunset in 2011 and the estate tax will revert back to the 1997 law with a top rate of 55 percent and a unified credit of $1 million.

According to the Heritage Foundation; “the estate tax has a large dead-weight loss. Because the estate tax falls on assets, it reduces incentives to save and invest and, therefore, hampers growth. Along with income taxes, the estate tax help raise the tax rate on income from assets relative to income from working. This unequal treatment of income leads to an inefficient mix of capital and labor.”

“The size of the dead-weight loss depends on how much of a nation's assets are subject to the tax and the amount of distortion. The estate tax exemption determines the proportion of wealth covered and the rate structure determines the degree of the distortion.”

“A rough measure of the distortion is the ratio of marginal to average rates for those paying the tax. The average rate is a proxy for the amount of revenue raised, while the marginal rate is a proxy for the overall price distortion. Under a uniform tax, the ratio would be one and the amount of distortion would be minimized. The greater the difference between the marginal and average tax rates, however, the greater the distortion and, therefore, the larger the dead-weight loss.”

“Currently, the marginal estate tax rate is nearly three times higher than the average. Even though the estate tax rate structure is progressive, the high ratio is due mostly to the unified credit. In 1916, the statutory exemption was $50,000. Adjusting the exemption for the growth in wealth between 1916 and 2003 indicates that estates under $11 million (in today's wealth) would not be taxed. In 1931, the exemption was worth even more--$14.1 million (in today's wealth). However, since then the real value of the exemption has fallen dramatically.” The low of about $356,000 was reached in 1976.

Tax bills in 1981 and 1997 provided modest increases in the exemption. However, the exemption of $675,000 in 2001 is still a far cry from its $11 million counterpart in 1916. This failure of the estate tax exemption to keep up with rising wealth is the main reason increasing numbers of average Americans face the prospect of having their heirs presented with an estate tax bill. A middle class family that owns a home and has IRAs, 401ks, or other retirement accounts could easily have assets exceeding $675,000 today or even $1 million five years from now. Remember, it’s not how much you paid for your home it’s the current appraised value at time of death.

While the eroding exemption has greatly expanded the estate tax base, both the lowest and highest tax rates also have gone up significantly since 1916. As a result, more of a taxable estate is taxed at the highest marginal rate. In 1916, only estates over $1 billion (in today's wealth) would have been taxed at the top rate of 10 percent. Contrast that with the top rate of 55 percent on estates of $3 million in place in 2001 (and possibly again in 2013).

The estate tax is particularly harmful to families that own businesses or farms. Even though the amount of the tax is based on asset value, the simple fact is that the tax must be paid out of income!

Let us look at two small business examples. Take a family-run store yielding a 10 percent return each year. Taxes reduce the return to 5 percent. If the owner dies and his estate is subject to the 55 percent estate tax rate, how do the heirs pay the bill? They could send 55 percent of the store's inventory or other physical assets to Washington, except Treasury does not accept payment-in-kind, only cash. Devoting the entire 5 percent annual return, the heirs could pay off the estate tax in only 11 years, except Treasury wants the money now. The heirs could borrow from the bank at 9 percent (4.5 percent after tax) and pay off the loan in 50 years, but rather than run the store for 50 years for free, they probably would sell.

This example is not as outlandish as one might think. Consider the small farmer who owns land near an urban area. His farm would yield a 10 percent return only when it is valued as farmland. But tax law requires that the asset be valued at its "best use," lowering the pre-tax return to 5 percent (2.5% after tax). In this case, even the 50-year bank loan will not save the farm.

The lesson to be learned here is that all taxes are paid out of income. Even if the estate tax is a "rare" event, only one chance in a lifetime, its average impact is very large — large enough that for some the combined effects of income and estate taxes approach 100 percent. The prospect is that as much as 55 percent of the principal of any investment will be taken in estate taxes on top of income taxes. In cases like these, the clear message is "don't invest, consume."

The Congress has tried to address the hardship circumstances for farmers and small business in general. But the remedy effectively has the government standing in for the bank. The final result is the same — heirs are left with a choice of owning a nonperforming asset for a number of years or simply selling. What is more, the IRS has taken these half measures as an excuse to raise appraised estate values, thereby reducing the tax relief.

The investment decision becomes even more complicated if there are ways to organize holdings to pass the income stream to heirs. Tax planning can significantly mitigate the effect of the estate tax. Because amounts involved tend to be large, estate planning richly rewards taxpayers who can anticipate that they might be subject to the tax. Those that do not plan or cannot anticipate are caught and pay the tax. This is simply unfair.

That is one reason why the largest estates do not pay the highest tax rates. Who does? Typically they are owners of small businesses, family farms, and savers who amass wealth during their lifetimes through hard work and thrift. Because wealth is often unexpected, these people may not be aware of, or take full advantage of, ways to reduce estate taxes. As a result, those who come late, or not at all, to estate planning end up paying most of the tax.

The estate tax is one of the most inefficient features of the current tax system. Its sheer complexity results in high compliance costs--as much as estate taxes raise by some estimates. High compliance costs along with distortions to economic activity warrant outright elimination of estate taxes before the sunset occurs.6

Failing repeal after 2010, the exemption should be raised significantly. Increasing the exemption to the range of $5 million to $10 million would restore eroded value and reduce the proportion of wealth subject to tax to be more in line with the 1920s and 1930s.

This would only partially address the impact of the tax, however. Under the unified credit structure, raising the exempt amount above $3 million would make the lowest marginal rate 55 percent, meaning the tax would be even less efficient than current law. While the amount of wealth subject to tax would be reduced, the rate structure would be harsher, increasing the ratio of marginal to average rates. The way to avoid this result is to convert the exemption from a credit to a deduction.

Another desirable change would be to expand the rate brackets and lower rates. As we have seen the current rate brackets have become compressed when compared to prior law. Expanding the brackets would reduce the marginal rate relative to the average and produce a more efficient system. Similarly, reducing estate tax rates would also help to improve the system. The best solution, however, would be to eliminate the estate and gift tax altogether before the sunset.

The estate tax is not only inefficient, it is immoral. The money that will be subjected to the estate tax has already been earned and taxed. It is not new found money. People have worked hard and invested wisely to accumulate estates that they want to pass on to their heirs. I can understand paying capital gains taxes on increases in investments or lands, but only when they are sold. The gain can be taxed, but not the total value of the asset as he estate tax does. This is not a tax for the “rich” — it is a tax for the middle class and working folks.

As illustrated above if a working family buys a home in the suburbs, as many Americans do, and home increased in appraised value over the years the estate tax will be based on the appraised value of the home at the time the owner dies. This is especially troubling at times of housing booms. Say a working family buys a home for $250,000 and twenty years later, after the mortgage has been paid in full, the home is now worth $800,000 on the housing market. This happened in Orange County, California during the housing boom of the late 1990s. This $550,000 is not cash, it’s merely an appraised value based on the current market. Combine this with other assets such as an IRA, an automobile, furnishing and a life insurance policy it is easy to have an estate in excess of $1 million dollars. If the home owner wants to leave the home to a surviving heir who wants to live in the home he or she will have to come with a sizable amount of cash to continue to live there. Otherwise they will be forced to sell the home and assets to pay the government for something their parents worked for their entire life.

It’s easy to see why the recipient class wants to impose an estate tax. It’s just another example of class warfare where those who have not been able to rise out of poverty want to take from those who have. What should we care what wealth our neighbor is able amass during his lifetime. He had the freedom to make choices, as we did. If he chose a different path than us and was able to gain wealth to pass on to his or her heirs so much the better. We should remember the 10th Commandment and covet thee neighbor’s goods. The estate tax should be abolished altogether.

Portions of this post were compiled using information from a report from the Heritage Foundation. You can read the full report along with accompanying graphs by clicking here.

Vanishing Detroit

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" — Frédéric Bastiat (The Law)

Last night the Minnesota Vikings and New Your Giants played their professional football game at Ford Field in Detroit, Michigan. This was due to the Viking’s home field, the Metrodome in Minneapolis, collapsing under the weight of two feet of snow.

An advance team of Viking’s officials and field maintenance staff were sent to Ford Field, a domed stadium, to prepare the stadium to appear as a home game for the Vikings. Viking signs were posted throughout the venue, a giant Viking logs was painted on the 50-yard line, and the end zones were painted with Viking and Giants colors and the team names. The tickets were given out free to anyone who showed up for the game with a preference to the Viking ticket holders for the best seats.

It was reported that thousands were lining up on Monday morning to get their “free” ticket for the game. I don’t know who profited from the concessions for hot dogs, beer and souvenirs; but I venture to guess it was the Ford Field folks. This was a big deal for the citizens of Detroit, a city on the verge of total collapse.

Detroit was once a city that was a big player in the economic growth of America. It was an engine of wealth and employment. Millionaires filled its wealthiest suburbs like Grosse Point. Detroit was home to the “big three” automakers; Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. The city produced millions of vehicles each year and employed thousands of workers in good paying jobs.

During World War II Detroit was a major player in the Arsenal of Democracy. The auto plants easily converted to the manufacture of tanks, guns, jeeps, trucks and other armaments needed for the war effort.

So many of Detroit’s young men left their jobs in the auto plants to join the military and go off to foreign shores to fight against the NAZIs and Japanese. This caused such a tremendous shortage of labor that women were brought into the war effort to take the place of men in the factories and at other jobs needed to run the city’s economy.

Even the enlistment of women was not enough to fill the demands of the labor required by the war. Poor migrants, many of them black, came to cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Gary and Pittsburgh to fill the unskilled jobs that were needed to produce the tanks, guns and planes needed to win the war.

This went well for a while until the tensions between the white and black workers reached a boiling point. In the summer of 1943, in the midst of World War II, tensions between blacks and whites in Detroit were escalating. Detroit's population had grown by 350,000 people since the war began. The booming defense industries had brought in large numbers of people with high wages and very little available housing. 50,000 blacks had recently arrived, along with 300,000 whites, mostly from rural Appalachia.

The altercations between black and white youth started on June 20, 1943, on a warm Saturday evening on Belle Isle. A fist fight broke out between a white man and a black man. The brawl eventually grew into a confrontation between groups of blacks and whites and then spread into the city. Rumors had started that a black woman had been assaulted by a white man. Another rumor was that a white woman was raped and killed by a black man. Stores were looted and buildings were burned in the riot, most of which were in a black neighborhood roughly two miles in and around Paradise Valley, one of the oldest and poorest neighborhoods in Detroit. The clashes soon escalated to the point where black and white mobs were assaulting one another, beating innocent motorists, pedestrians and streetcar passengers, burning cars, destroying storefronts and looting businesses. Both sides were said to have encouraged others to join in the riots with false claims that one of “their own” was attacked unjustly. More than 1,800 were arrested for looting and other incidents, the vast majority being black. Thirteen murders remain unsolved.

The Riots lasted three days and ended once Mayor Edward Jeffries, Jr. and Governor Harry Kelly asked President Roosevelt to intervene. Federal troops finally restored peace to the streets of Detroit. Over the course of three days, 34 people were killed, 25 of whom were African Americans. Out of the approximately 600 injured, black people accounted for more than 75 percent and of the roughly 1,800 people who were arrested over the course of the 3 day riots, black people accounted for 85 percent.

After the riot, leaders on both sides had an explanation for the riots. White city leaders including the mayor pointed the finger at young black “hoodlums.” The Wayne County prosecutor believed that the leaders of the NAACP were to blame as the instigators of the riots. Detroit's black leaders pointed to other causes ranging from job discrimination, to housing discrimination, police brutality and daily animosity received from Detroit's white population. These riots were not exclusive to Detroit. There were 242 racial disturbances in 48 cities throughout the country, but Detroit was the worst.

After the war ended and the men returned from their military service and wanted their jobs back the first to be laid off in favor of the returning servicemen were the women and the next were the blacks. Even with the post-war economic boom many of these blacks were never rehired and Detroit began to enter a death spiral of welfare, poor schools and gangs.

67 years after the riots of 1943 Detroit is a city embroiled with political corruption and hackneyed politics. A city where crime rules the streets, with Detroit ranking number 2 on the worst cities list right behind Camden, New Jersey. A city where only 25% of students graduate from high school

Business Insider reports; “Detroit has been bankrupt for years. It simply refuses to admit it. Detroit's schools are bankrupt as well. A mere 25% of students graduate from high school.

Yet, in spite of hints and threats from mayors and budget commissions, and in spite of common sense talk of bankruptcy, Detroit has not pulled the bankruptcy trigger.

In a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable one last time, Mayor Bing's latest plan is to cutoff city services including road repairs, police patrols, street lights, and garbage collection in 20% of Detroit.

“City officials suggest this will not shrink the size of the city. Perhaps it won't shrink Detroit on Google Maps. However, Bing's plan would effectively surrender 20% of the city to gangs and the homeless.”

The Wall Street Journal report states; “More than 20% of Detroit's 139 square miles could go without key municipal services under a new plan being developed for the city, with as few as seven neighborhoods seen as meriting the city's full resources.”

“Those details, outlined by Detroit planning officials this week, offer the clearest picture yet of how Mayor Dave Bing intends to execute what has become his signature program: reconfiguring Detroit to reflect its declining population and fiscal health. Yet the blueprint still leaves large legal and financial questions unresolved.”

“Until now, the mayor and his staff have spoken mostly in generalities about the problem, stressing the need for community input and pledging to a skeptical public that no resident would be forced to move.”

“But the approach discussed by city officials could have that effect. Mr. Bing's staff wants to concentrate Detroit's remaining population—expected to be less than 900,000 after this year's Census count—and limited local, state and federal dollars in the most viable swaths of the city, while other sectors could go without such services as garbage pickup, police patrols, road repair and street lights.”

“Karla Henderson, a city planning official leading the mayor's campaign, said in an interview Thursday that her staff had deemed just seven to nine sections of Detroit worthy of receiving the city's full resources. She declined to identify the areas, but said the final plan could include a greater number.”

“Ms. Henderson said her team amassed hundreds of data—on household income, population density, employment, existing city services, philanthropic investments and housing stock —in its effort to identify the neighborhoods with the brightest outlook—those that could be stabilized with additional city, state and federal resources.”

"What we have found is that even some of our stronger neighborhoods are at a tipping point with vacancy," Ms. Henderson said. "Vacancy adds to blight and blight is a disease that takes over the whole neighborhood. So the sooner we can get those homes occupied, the better for the city.”

This is a condition not limited to Detroit. Cities such as Oakland, St. Louis, Cleveland, and many others are approaching the same precipice of economic bankruptcy. With the massive costs for welfare and social services, shrinking tax base, poor schools, unfunded liabilities for public service workers pensions, teachers unions with the protection of underperforming teachers and increasing demands for higher wages and guaranteed pensions and a political class that panders for votes we are approaching a time in our history when cities are beginning to fail.

Until now cities have been relying on funds from state and the federal government to bails them out of their financial woes. With states experiencing the same malaise and the rising deficits of the federal budgets money for these cities are no longer going to be available. Perhaps the time has come for these cities to realize the mess they are in and declare bankruptcy rewrite their public service and teacher union contracts and tighten their belts in all areas of spending so they can survive. No more promises, no more pandering to special interest groups and no more fountains and stadiums unless they are totally financed with private money.

Did We Miss an Election?

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” — Frederic Bastiat

While we were sleeping during the night of December 9th did we miss a presidential election? It appears as though we did.

Anyone walking into the middle of the news conference Friday afternoon at the White House would be forgiven for wondering whether Bill Clinton was back for a command performance as leader of the free world.

Clinton — who for the record has been out of the president's office for a decade -- stood in front of the White House logo and took questions from reporters as if he hadn't missed a beat. But this time, he was selling the policies of his successor — George W. Bush.

Obama, after meeting with Clinton, brought him back onto center stage in a surprise appearance to endorse the tax deal Obama has struck with Republicans. But it remains to be seen whether even Clinton has the power to quell a revolt brewing on the left and the right.

Yet Clinton seemed like the perfect choice to try to pacify liberals angry over a Democratic president tacking to his center. Clinton, after all, popularized "triangulating" in the 90's and was credited for overseeing a decade of prosperity and peace in country.

"I don't believe there is a better deal out there," Clinton told reporters, who called him "Mr. President."

After a private meeting with Obama in the Oval Office, Clinton held court for more than 30 minutes, expressing support not only for the tax deal, but also the stalled U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty.

For his part, Obama said it was a "terrific meeting," turned the podium over to Clinton and eventually left to attend a Christmas party.

During their private meeting, Clinton presumably offered Obama some advice on how to deal with his critics on the left as well as an emboldened GOP, which takes control of the House in January and increases its ranks in the Senate.

Liberal Democrats are outraged that Obama cut a deal extending the Bush tax cuts for all households, including the wealthiest Americans. In return, Obama got an extension of long-term unemployment aid for 13 months and a one-year reduction to the Social Security payroll tax on employees.

Liberals fear the deal could be the first of many he makes over the next two years that favors Republicans in a strategy known as triangulation.

You can watch the video of the White House press briefing by clicking here. The video is 32 minutes long, but the most revealing parts take place at the 01:28 and 10:54 marks. At 01:28 Obama walks away from the White House podium and turns it over to Clinton. He then stands by, looking at Clinton in awe, while Clinton begins to explain to the reporters why this extension of the Bush tax rates is a “good deal”.  At the 10:54 mark Obama walks to Clinton, pats him on the shoulder and says “Here's what I'll say, is I've been keeping the first lady waiting for about half an hour, so I'm going to take off —.you're in good hands” and walks of stage. Clinton continues on his own, in front of the White House logo, for another 22 minutes fielding questions from the press.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says he will support President Obama's tax cut compromise, even though he's not happy about all the pork and earmarks being loaded into it. In fact, McCain predicts that if Congress keeps it up, Americans will be so upset by the fiscal irresponsibility, they will elect third party.

"Unless we satisfy the message of this last election, you will see the rise of a third party," McCain told Fox News on Saturday. He went on to say most Americans think Congress has not responded to the message voters sent this election.

"Stop the spending, keep the taxes low, end the corruption, have some fiscal discipline, and start making some tough decisions about this debt that we have laid on every man, woman and child in America," he said.

McCain says he thinks the tax extenders bill will pass, but adds, "The Tea Partiers and the majority of Americans will justifiably feel betrayed" if Congress adds an omnibus appropriations bill, instead of keeping a clean bill.

He's particularly upset about an extension for an ethanol tax credit that has been wrapped into the Senate's tax-cut package. The bill would extend a 45 cent per gallon ethanol tax cut credit for two years, which McCain calls unacceptable.

Today we are in the midst of the holiday season and the north and east are cold and snow covered — not a good time to take to the streets. I am sure that after January 3rd the people who turned out 65 Democrats will be watching the 112th Congress with great care. If this new Congress does not heed the message of last November those same people will be out to remind them that 2012 is just around the corner.

Somehow we must have missed the election of Bill Clinton as the 45th president of the United States. Is he another Grover Cleveland? This is unprecedented in our history when a president of the United States is so weak and disengaged he has to call on a former (and disgraced) president to stand in for him — who will he call on next, Jimmy Carter.

If the picture of Michelle barefoot and walking on hot bricks while her husband and the Indonesian dignitary walked on the carpet told us a great deal about how carelessly organized the presidential visit to Indonesia was, this picture speaks to us about how unserious and unqualified Obama is for the highest office in the land.

Obama called the former president in to make the case he was unable to make himself and then left to party.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal noted that Bill Clinton was an odd endorser of the proposed tax rates:

Taranto notes in a comment on the Daily Caller; “I was at the 2004 Democratic Convention, where I watched Bill Clinton deliver a very effective, though completely wrongheaded, attack on the Bush tax rates. Today I turn on the TV to see Bill Clinton holding a White House news conference to endorse those same tax rates. It's great to see him come around, even if his return to the presidential podium runs counter to the spirit of the 22nd Amendment.”

It's as if it shocks Obama that his promise to stop the rising of the waters and to heal the sick and feed the poor doesn't seem enough. People want to see results, and the only results they are seeing is the destruction of centuries' worth of sound legal doctrine (the bailouts) and economic structures (our health care system) and national wealth (trillions wasted to no end except to pay off Obama's friends).

Or is it that having stepped out of the chattering classes into a position of responsibility, Obama is being forced — too late — to realize that all his beliefs and those of the left are just so much unicorn scat — unworkable, unrealistic nonsense?  If that's so, no wonder he seems disquieted.  He surely isn't able to see where to go since being exiled from wonderland, where he was the one we were waiting for, to reality, where he seems unable to carry out his responsibilities and retain his allies and support.

In fact, Obama's spokesman Gibbs did point his finger at Congress and said they should have taken up the issue before November, as Obama urged them to, but the truth is that, having rammed through the unpopular Obamacare law, both the congressional leadership and the administration caved to the Blue Dogs' pleas that the tax issue be put in order for them to have any hope of reelection. The left-wingers who lost that battle are now in no mood to cede to the White House's begging for more "compromise."  And when all is said and done, the White House failure to communicate the deal with the congressional Democrats before announcing it publicly revealed a striking ignorance of Washington protocol and rubbed salt in their wounds.

The economy is not all that Obama and his administration are demonstrably failing at. WikiLeaks is severely undercutting our diplomatic service, and yet our response is weak.  Eric Holder still hasn't made any moves to get Assange extradited from the U.K., where extradition is easier than it will be from Sweden, and he's had since July, when the document dump began, to think up something.  Instead, the president had him fly overseas in a failed attempt to get the World Cup held in the U.S. This mirrors the great expense and effort Obama put in his failed attempt to get Chicago named the venue for the Olympics.

Max Boot sated in the American Thinker; “... if those barriers are insuperable, why hasn't the administration proposed legislation to Congress that would allow the prosecution of cyber-vandals like Assange? Given the diplomatic damage that WikiLeaks continues to cause, the administration's inaction so far signals a dangerous ineffectuality that will come back to haunt the U.S. We can't rely on the Swedish courts to lock up Assange for rape - not when the apparent facts of the case appear to be as bizarre as they are.” You can read the Daily Mail article here.

When you elect to the office of chief executive someone with not one minute's worth of executive experience, this is what you get. He can't do his job, and the people he appointed to work with him are just as ill-suited for their positions.

What Happens in Cancún Stays in Cancún

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” — Albert Camus

The 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in Cancún, Mexico, from 29 November to 10 December 2010. The conference is officially referred to as the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 16)  to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 6th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (CMP 6) to the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, the two permanent subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC – the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) – held their 33rd sessions. The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference extended the mandates of the two temporary subsidiary bodies, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA), and they met as well.

The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions, to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The agreement includes a proposed $100 billion a year fund to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation.

The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

There were about 15,000 delegates from 194 countries. But no one of any importance bothered to come — no leaders from the free or the un-free world with the exception of Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who gave the opening address and Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. It was left to the totally daft Ted ("I'm not chased by demons") Turner to try to keep everyone from falling fast asleep and forgetting all about global warming.

These delegates there on their government’s dime stayed in 5-star hotels and dined and wined in the finest restaurants. They sipped on margaritas at poolside and enjoyed basking in the warm Mexican sun while they convinced each other of the righteousness of their cause. Everyone was preaching to the choir.

Notably absent were luminaries like Barak Obama, Hilary Clinton and John Kerry, who were present and visible at COP-15 in Copenhagen. Heads of state were conspicuous by the absence from COP-16. No fewer than 119 heads of state signed up for Copenhagen. Even Robert Mugabe, the deranged president of Zimbabwe, felt compelled to put in an appearance. As far as I can tell from COP-16's blog site, Mexican President Felipe Calderón and Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, were the only heads of state in attendance this year. Nor did any leading U.S. Democrats come down to soak up the sun or to add some much needed spice to the warmed-over warnings of global warming being served to the participants. Even alarmist-in-chief Al Gore was a no-show.

Calderón did not help the cause by giving a boring opening address. Calling on negotiators in Cancún to make progress in the interest of their children and grandchildren, he said that the "eyes of the world" were focused on the meeting. In an audience composed of mid-level UN officials and apparatchiks like Jane Davidson, the Welsh environmental minister, I doubt that there was a single soul who didn't know full well that the eyes of the world were glazed over at the thought of one more global warming summit.

Thus it was left to always surprising Ted Turner — author of the autobiography Call Me Joe — to try to inject some life into the conference. Turner, a longtime supporter of the president, said that Obama had made "a big mistake" by ramming through Obamacare rather than cap-and-trade. As he put it in his inimitable way, "If we don't stop global warming, we'll be extinct, and then we'll be really sorry."

At this time last year, the lunatics were in full command of the asylum. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and a supporting cast of thousands were jetting off to Copenhagen to swear their undying allegiance to the idea that it is necessary to save the planet from the scourge of human life. That would be human life, most particularly, as it is lived here in the United States and other parts of the world that have not yet gotten around to pulling the plug on capitalism and moving on to a more enlightened way of organizing production and redistributing material wealth. Climate change is a religion for them — This is their Hajj.

Never mind that the "Climategate" scandal had only recently exposed how climate scientists working for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had conspired to quash evidence contrary to the theory of man-made global warming. Paying no attention to that, Obama began his speech to the UN Climate Summit Conference in Copenhagen with these words:

“Good morning. It is an honor for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave a growing danger to our people. All of you would not be here unless you -- like me -- were convinced that this danger is real. It is not fiction, it is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet….That's why I come here today -- not to talk, but to act.”

Well, actually, nothing came of the Copenhagen conference. There was no global climate deal. But so what? The point is, the president rubbed shoulders with just about all of world's leaders at the Copenhagen conference — everyone from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to Indian premier Manmohan Singh, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. From Copenhagen Obama flew on to Oslo to collect the Nobel Peace Prize and give another speech filled with intimations of his own omniscience.

There was, however, an event at COP-16 that is going unreported in the left wing mainstream media, an event that gives pause to those who believe in the expertise of these true believers in climate change. A group from the student arm of a market-oriented non-profit environmental group known as the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), circulated a partition among the delegates calling for the ban of dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO). They went about with clipboards containing copies of the petition and asking delegates to sign. The petition claimed that DHMO was responsible for:

• Is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
• Contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
• May cause severe burns.
• Is fatal if inhaled.
• Contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
• Accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
• May cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
• Has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

• As an industrial solvent and coolant.
• In nuclear power plants.
• In the production of Styrofoam.
• As a fire retardant.
• In many forms of cruel animal research.
• In the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
• As an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

With the sincerity and passion expressed by the petitioners many of the delegates were enthusiastically signing without realizing that this purported to be dangerous compound, DHMO, was the correct chemical nomenclature, for water, H2O. It’s amazing to see these leftist, environmentalists being so gullible and ignorant of the subject they purport to be so expert in. Your absolutely have to watch the video of the useful idiots signing up to ban water. Click here for the video, you will love the music. Play it a few times and watch the seriousness of the signers. You can read a full account of the useful scam by clicking here and an explanation of how the DHMO hoax started by clicking here.

If a group of college students can fool these delegates into banning water, is it any surprise that the UN can fool then into devastating our economy by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, something humans exhale and plants inhale. What a state we have created for ourselves — a soft tyranny of the left.

And this raises a further subject for honest wonderment. What a difference a year has made in the life of our 44th president.

A year ago, he was flying over to Europe to give speeches and accept a Nobel Prize. Today he is sulking in his tent and lashing out at critics both left and right. He even claims that he is the victim of a "hostage" situation. He is upset that the Republicans seem to have hijacked the bus carrying the clear majority of the American people and are using that to make outrageous demands. Pobre hombre! (The “poor devil", an “unlucky one” for you non Spanish speakers) It seems that he has come face-to-face with the realization that he really doesn't know what he's supposed to be doing as the leader of the United States and the free world. He has to call upon Bill Clinton to hold hid hand as he battles his opposition.

A Beautiful Day in the Golden State

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery”. — Winston Churchill

I awoke about 6:30 this morning and my wife and I took our two German shepherds, Baina and Blaze for a mile walk. It was one of those gorgeous late autumn days in Southern California. The air was crystal clear and the sky a deep blue. You could clearly see the show atop the distant mountains the east. The temperature was a crisp 45 degrees and the walk was quite invigorating for the dogs and us. It was truly a great way to begin the day.

As we walked the neighborhood we noticed how many people had their houses decorated for Christmas. Most of the homes are decked with modest displays of season —lights strung along the roof line and a few lighted displays on the front lawn. It is nothing spectacular like some of the houses in our neighboring development, but a definite display of the Christmas season.

After the walk I decided to take the car to our local hand wash. I wanted to get there early so I would not have to wait in the usual line. When I arrived I was able to drive right up to the start line, get fuel and tell the attendant what wash I wanted — the VIP or executive. I decided on the executive as it is three dollars less than the VIP.

As I waited for the car to be finished I watched the men busily wiping the cars and cleaning he windows. These men, all Hispanic, were dressed in their car wash uniforms and doing a great job in the cold air. My windows were spotless, not a streak or smear on them. I don’t know if these men were legal or illegal and frankly this morning I didn’t care. They were working hard and earning their daily bread.

After the car was finished I drove up the road to Target to pick up a pair of glasses I had ordered from their optical department. When I arrived there were people already loading their shopping carts into their cars and the store was filled with shoppers. It was about 9:15. When I got to the entrance for the optical department I discovered it did not open until 10:00 a.m. I was disappointed, but it was too nice of a day to get upset. I just left for my next stop and told myself I would come back later.

My stop was the cleaners to pick up three pairs of pants I had in for cleaning and pressing. The little dry cleaning shop in our neighborhood shopping plaza is run by a Korean family, as many are. I was greeted by the little Korean girl with a smile on her face. She promptly retrieved my pants from one of those moving overhead racks. The pants were properly cleaned and pressed and neatly hung in plastic wrap. I paid the girl and thanked her. As I was leaving she wished me a Merry Christmas with a smile. I don’t know if she was a Christian or a Buddhists, I didn’t care.

On my way home I noticed all the trees along the boulevard were now wearing their gold, amber and orange leaves of autumn. You can see along the boulevard leading to our development for about two miles — it a straight run to the turnoff to leading to my development. The sight of the colored leaves against the deep blue sky with the snow-capped mountains in the distance is quite an awesome sight.

As I turned into my development and crossed over the bridge over the golf course I could see the morning golfers with their little carts milling about the lush green of the course. When you cross over the bridge you get a great view of the mountains, it’s quite a sight.

By the time I arrived at home I was beginning to wonder how such a beautiful state, with so many natural resources and so much beautify could become a social nightmare burdened under a mountain of debt? Was it because we didn’t work hard enough? The men in the car wash were working hard and the little Korean girl at the cleaners was there from 8 to 6 doing her job. Didn’t we pay enough taxes? California has one the highest state income tax in the nation. Our sales tax is 9%, our property taxes are high and we pay about $0.65 tax on a gallon of gas. Is it because we did not have enough resources and industry? At one time we had aircraft plants, car plants, a thriving IT industry, medical appliance industry, the movie industry, one of the largest farming and agribusiness in the world, mining, and oil refineries. We had the lowest rate of unemployment in the nation at 4.5% and were the 6th largest economy in the world ahead of France, Belgium, Ireland, and other EU countries. Only the United States, Japan, Great Britain, Germany and China had a greater GDP than California. How could things go so wrong in the Golden State?

Four things drove us into this mess; insane regulations, greedy, power hungry politicians and their out of control spending, a bloated civil service and school system with their union guaranteed pensions and health care and greedy public sector unions that don’t give a damn about those guys in the car wash, that Korean girl in the cleaners or you and me.

With the increasing power of the environmental and other special interest groups over the past thirty years many businesses, large and small, have left California for more friendly business environments. Car plants have closed, aviation companies have moved, farms have been regulated out of business and land is now lying fallow. IT businesses, like Intel and Dell have moved to New Mexico or China. Banking centers have relocated to North Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. Small businesses have done the same with many moving to Arizona, Nevada and Texas where the taxes are lower and the regulations are less.

California government has grown in leaps and bounds in the past thirty years. We have state agencies piled on top of state agencies. In fact we have so many state agencies that most agencies do not even know of the existence of the other agencies. This has bloated or civil service employment. With a state-wide unemployment rate of 12% the civil service is still growing.

We have a school system that was once the envy of the nation. Our community college system was second to none. Now we rank somewhere around 47th on the national scale of K-12 education. We spend, on average, about $9,000 per K-12 student each year. About 25% of California’s students are English learners (ELs), compared with almost 9% nationally. Most of California’s English learners (85%) speak Spanish.

Civil service and teachers unions have burdened the California tax payer with a mountain of unfunded pension and health care liability. Due to the laws passed, beginning with the 1978 Dill Act, (click here for my blog post on his issue) public sector unions have gained more and more power over politicians and attained more and more compensation and protection for their members. This also applies to the greed and arrogance of the teachers unions.

The greed of the politicians to maintain their power is unparalleled, even by the U.S. Congress. Over the past thirty years California has had a Democrat controlled state assembly and senate. They have maintained this control by garnering the support of their base constituents — public sector unions, teachers unions, environmental groups, radical leftists and welfare recipients. They claim to be the party of the poor, a claim that is true as they need the poor to maintain power. As soon as there are no “poor” they lose.

All of this did not happen overnight. It began on a small scale with small steps, but always in the same direction — the wrong direction. Like the boiling frog theory the voters of California were immersed in a pot of water at a cozy and comfortable temperature and they (we) paid no attention. It felt okay. As the heat was turned up and we eventually began to boil we hardly noticed we were cooking to death. Now we don’t know what to do so we elected the architect of the boiling pot — Jerry Brown.

If you think those riots going on in London over a small increase in a minimal tuition for a university education is restricted to the land of our forefathers think again. You haven’t seen the end of it yet. It’s coming to California very soon.

This is what can happen to a beautiful day in California when you begin to think too much.