Achilles, the Tortoise, and the Deficit

Greek philosopher Zeno’s most famous paradox was an attempt to show that motion is a myth. In Zeno’s scenario, Achilles must race a tortoise and because Achilles is much faster he gives the tortoise a head start. Surely a demigod outraces a plodding reptile with four-inch legs, right?

Zeno of Elea (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Not so fast, my friend,” said Zeno of Elea, who may have been an ancestor of ESPN commentator Lee Corso. After the contestants begin running, Achilles reaches the starting point of the tortoise, but the tortoise is also moving and is at a point farther down the track. Achilles will soon reach that second point, but his armored rival has again moved on. This scenario repeats an infinite number of times because there are an infinite number of points between the two.

The point (pun intended) Zeno was attempting to make was that while Achilles gains on the tortoise he can never catch him. The current – and more accurate – scenario is the reduction of the deficit can never reduce the debt.

The deficit is like the gap between Zeno and the tortoise; it doesn’t matter how much you reduce the deficit, income never catches spending and thus every year we are more in debt. When a politician brags on “reducing the deficit” - and I’m looking at you Barack Obama - remember they’re losing ground to a tortoise and at the end of the day our federal government is more in debt. 

May You Live in Interesting Times

Georgia State Capitol Building
Image via Wikipedia

Let's start with what we know about the bond rating issue and how it might affect the state of Georgia. Frankly, at this moment, it's not much.

Standard & Poor's (S&P) had reduced the bond rating of the federal government from AAA to AA+ while Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, apparently satisfied with the recent budget agreement, have allowed the US to retain their highest debt ratings.

Georgia is one of only eight states to have earned the highest debt rating from all three services - at least for now. It remains to be seen if S&P will be willing to rate individual states higher than the federal government. It may depend upon how much of a state's AAA rating is based upon backing from the federal government.

A Tiny Victory in a Long War

Now is not the time for back-slapping. This weekend, conservatives merely won a small, though significant, concession from Democrats. While $38 billion is only two percent of the projected 2011 deficit, it did change the focus of the American people. The emphasis is now on deficit reduction, not shifting funds from program to program.

As for the real budget debate, we are just beginning. Remember that the most recent conflict was because Democrats failed to pass – or to attempt to pass – a budget for 2011. The 2011 budget was due by October of 2010 when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Rather than use their huge majorities to pass an overgrown budget that would outrage the American public, they simply passed a huge increase in the federal debt ceiling. There was no budget or responsibility but the spending binge continued.

The debate for 2012 will be even more contentious, partly because the Presidential election is in 2012. The 2012 budget is due by October of this year and the debt limit will have to be addressed even before then.

President Obama has already asked for “a clean bill” to authorize an increase in federal debt without any restrictions. This asks Congress to surrender its responsibility for oversight. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has already stated that any increase in the federal debt would only be passed with significant changes that address the source of our debt. This illuminates two views of government.

The difference is that Democrats want to find a way to be more efficient while keeping – or even growing – the size of government. There have been no suggestions from Democrat leadership to reduce the size of the federal government. That’s not hyperbole; they have made zero proposals to reduce the size of government. This Republican-led House, while more timid than many would like, is striving to reduce the size of the federal government.

So, why are Democrats still seeking to spend more of our resources on government programs that we obviously cannot afford? I believe that some still have the mindset that the economy requires federal programs to prop up the economy. While this is neither logical nor reasonable, there are leftists who have no faith in individuals.

My concern is those who cynically grow the government to increase their own power and influence. You can usually tell them because they know they are wrong and can’t rely on facts to support their positions. They tell lies continually to denigrate their opponents instead of addressing issues. If you are thinking of President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi then we’re on the same page. I won’t begin listing the falsehoods knowingly told by this trio regarding the economy. That would fill a book and I don’t have the inclination or the space.

This budget debate will be a fight for our future, so do not let numbers frighten you away. Either continued government growth or rising debt will destroy our nation; our path has been to increase both. If we fail to stop this trend, our nation will sink into mediocrity weighed down by chains of debt while our children will grow into adulthood in a second-class country, ignorant of American exceptionalism. I see no alternative other than to win this fight.

You will be needed. The battle lines are drawn. Paul Ryan has authored the battle plan for conservatives and it is a good, bold plan. It’s not perfect, but adjustments should be made by applying additional cuts, not increased taxes.

An important note to conservatives in Congress: Please do not fall into the false concept that the government is the country. Shutting down the government is not shutting down the country. It’s better to rebel and crash the government than to fatally harm our country. If it’s necessary, you won’t be the first to make that courageous decision.

It’s time. Let’s roll.

Reid My Lips, Harry

If you’re right about something, why would you lie about it? That’s a question someone needs to ask Harry Reid. It’s no secret that Reid (D-NV) dislikes the TEA Party and accuses them of being dangerous to the country because they want to curtail federal spending, but Reid is going out of his way to misrepresent polls regarding the TEA Party.

Harry Reid is the symbol of everything that’s wrong with Washington. Reid cares more about maintaining power for the sake of maintaining power than he cares about his country. I say this because our federal government’s financial situation is in crisis and Reid is more concerned about remaining US Senate Majority Leader than he is in solving the problems.

Due in large part to Reid’s policies, our country is overwhelmed with debt and we are rapidly approaching the point where we can no longer remain solvent. Looking at rising oil and food prices and seeing the very real possibility of inflation, we may already be caught in a riptide of debt caused by overspending that will drown our economy.

Reid in incapable of helping solve our financial problems and Republicans need to learn this. In order to be an agent of change, Reid and his fellow leftists must first admit that our country has a problem and that they are its main cause. Reid is incapable of admitting he was wrong and keeping his power-base. By his actions and his false rhetoric, Reid has announced that he would rather be wrong and powerful than do what is best for his country.

Reid would deny all of this, I’m sure, but so what? If there was any doubt that Harry Reid will lie, just remember this: He is on record as blaming Republicans for the Democrat’s failure to pass a budget last year when they had the US Presidency and large majorities in both houses of the legislative branch.

Ask yourself what the TEA Party folks have to gain by their actions other than a reduction in the size of government and a reduction in federal spending. Then ask yourself what Senator Reid and his cronies have to gain by lying about the TEA Party. The only thing their statements might accomplish is a continuation of their power. Finally, ask yourself this: If Democrats could no longer give our tax dollars to special interests groups, could they ever again have a national majority?

Then, there is Reid’s latest statement that the TEA Party is dangerous and unpopular. He stated that most people disliked the TEA Parties. Yet, Scott Rasmussen’s latest poll shows that 48% of Americans consider their beliefs to be closer to the TEA Party than to Congress. Less than 30% of Americans stated their beliefs were closer to the average Congressman.

So why would Harry lie? He’s still attempting to convince the American people that the TEA Party movement is dangerous. Yet, I see the projected $1.65 trillion shortfall for 2011 and it’s pretty apparent that the TEA Party activists and their allies are wearing the white hats. Harry Reid is a dangerous, power-hungry demagogue without a conscience. 

I hope the rest of Senator Reid's time as Senate Majority Leader is very frustrating. Read my lips, Harry; it ends in January, 2013. 

14 Hours, 29 Minutes, 49 Seconds Of Democrat Sacrifice

Want to see a pale, frightened Democrat run screaming from a room? Forget about Dracula, tsunamis and rabid divorce attorneys. Just mention tax cuts or spending cuts or program cuts. That’s all you have to do. Honest.

In February alone, the US had a deficit of $222.5 billion. To put things in perspective, the Democrats could only suggest $4.8 billion in tax cuts for the entire year. If you do the math, these cuts would have balanced federal spending in February for just 14 hours, 29 minutes and 49 seconds. Let’s be clear, this is only the difference it would take to make up for the deficit, not actually pay for anything.

Even this miniscule spending reduction sent Democrats such as John Kerry (People’s Republic of Massachusetts) into a frenzy. If Kerry was a Southerner (perish the thought), then we would have said that he’d had a “hissy fit”.

Meanwhile other Democrats are saying that the only way to begin balancing the budget is to immediately attack entitlement spending. This is the same tactic the Left uses at the local level when it always suggests the most popular programs be reduced first: police, fire protection, garbage collection, etc. At the national level, the reductions that frighten the most people are entitlements. Same old Democrats, same old masculine bovine fecal material, different government level.

The time has come when it is no longer sufficient to laugh at the left’s demagoguery and wonder why anyone would elect these intellectually weak, pandering politicos. We must make the federal government more responsive and responsible. The longer we wait to take action, then the more severe the action and the consequences will be when we have no choice but to act. It’s our government and it must be brought to heel.

In the meantime, I suppose we should thank the liberals in the Congress for taking our debt crisis seriously enough to find those 14 hours, 29 minutes and 49 seconds of savings. What a laudatory sacrifice! Perhaps if the Democrat majority had actually passed a budget last year then more spending reductions could have been found. By the way, I hope you don’t believe that, because I certainly don’t.

Around the World in 80 Lines - Or Less

Gadhafi’s Speech Fails to Set Record

Looking like a refugee from a Star Wars’ bar scene, waning Libyan strong-man Moammar Gadhafi broadcast his confused harangue to an audience of captive Libyans for a mere two hours. He again failed to set a Guinness World Record for speech length by a dysfunctional, megalomaniacal, delusional tyrant. 

The current record is in dispute, but Fidel Castro, Nikita Kruschev and Hugo Chavez all have much longer, documented diatribes. Kim Jung Il’s speeches were disqualified because they are actually delivered by a Disney-manufactured Animatronic “Doc” dwarf with a bad dye job.

Gadhafi is blaming the US for his domestic problems and is vowing to make himself “a martyr” in response. As Oscar Wilde said, “A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it,” but if Gadhafi wants to inhale an RPG then I might be willing to think about it.

The self-proclaimed “Mad Dog of the Middle East” decides upon martyrdom just as a former Libyan Justice Minister states that Gadhafi was much more involved in downing the Lockerbie, Scotland, downing of Pan Am Flight 103 than previously believed. I’m sure there are Americans - especially those related to the 259 innocents killed, as well as Libyans, who would gladly help Gadhafi toward his stated goal of assuming room temperature.

Remember the Federal Debt

With the focus of Americans split between the Middle East and the Wisconsin teachers’ drama, the federal debt has slipped from the view of many. Republicans are in a position to use an agreement to a continuing resolution to wring spending cuts from Democrats. The questions will be: 1) Will the Democrats believe they can bluff Republicans into approving a series of continuing resolutions that fail to cut spending; and, 2) If, as is almost certain, they do believe so, will Republicans then fold?

Washington’s addiction to spending taxpayers’ money is obvious – as is the fact that Congress is in denial. Is there a 12-step program for governments?

Democrat State Legislators Continue Hide-n-Seek Marathon

Rumor is that the missing Democrat Wisconsin state senators are hiding on loony leftist Keith Olbermann’s TV show. This will likely come to light as soon as Olbermann has a viewer. 

Correction and Amplification: It turns out Olbermann's scheduled show on Current (aka Albert Gore, Jr.) TV has not yet aired. Who knew?

Democrat state legislators from Indiana are also in hiding rather than vote on legislation which they do not have the votes to stop. At this rate Democrats may want to change the name of their party to reflect something they actually believe in; and it’s obviously not representative Democracy. I’m accepting nominations for a new, more appropriate name and symbol. One nomination is the “Denial Party” and their mascot would be an ostrich.

Harry Reid and Prostitution

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is working on a way to continue to fund the federal government rather than work on ways to cut federal spending. Reid is also calling for an end to legal prostitution in Nevada. Having just run a political campaign there, isn’t Reid a hypocrite?

Beautiful, Sleepy, Deadly Mexico

Recent tragic events have brought home the point that Americans are no longer safe in Mexico. It appears that warring drug cartels are a large part of this, but this is a departure from their previous strategies that avoided violence toward Americans. It begs the question, “What happens when those drug cartels change their strategies to include distribution in the United States?”

For Mexican drug cartels, it’s a business decision. There are those who argue this will never happen, but for the drug lords, it’s simply “vertical integration”. Like all business decisions, it’s a matter of risk and reward and the only way to halt it is to either increase risk or reduce reward so that it’s not a profitable project.

Part of that strategy to increase drug cartel costs might be to do a much better job of halting illegal border crossings. So obviously the Obama Administration will . . . file another lawsuit against Arizona! Yes, the Arizona legislature has proposed new anti-illegal immigration legislation, which will inevitably be challenged by the Obama Administration as soon as it is passed. Good luck on that, Arizona.

The Strategy to Begin Balancing the Budget

Entitlements are the 800-pound, beer-chugging, Angel Dust-snorting, psychotic gorilla in the room. It may be too late, but people are beginning to get a little nervous. Because of their size, we all know that entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid must be addressed if we are to balance the budget. The question is: Will Congress do so?

Even minor changes in Social Security, though, have met with surprising resistance from politicians on the left and from recipients. Some sensible suggestions phase in minor changes and don’t affect anyone within 10 years of retirement and affects no current recipients. The overblown reaction to such suggestions are emotional rather than logical, and this must be taken into account.

I am convinced that Americans will accept changes to entitlement programs if – and only if – they are convinced that all other measures have been undertaken. So while entitlement benefit payouts must be reduced, but only after other programs have taken their hits.

Before taking on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; Republicans in Congress should work to eliminate the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and that’s just a beginning. Funding can be eliminated or reduced, for Obamacare, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense and others.

If the GOP-led House fails to accomplish this, then the burden shifts to the Democrats. Republicans can even, somewhat believably, claim that transfer payments might have taken a lighter hit if the other cuts had not be stone-walled by Democrat legislators in the US Senate.

If these cuts or eliminations are made, then the recipients of transfer payments will know that the task of balancing the budget won’t be completely on their backs. They will also understand that the current fiscal problems are, indeed, serious. For that reason, these other programs must go first, even if they are a lesser part of the deficit.

Interestingly, it has mostly been the Democrats that have accused Republicans of making “meaningless cuts” – small cuts that the Democrats could have made when they controlled both bodies of the legislative branch and the executive branch. Democrats are challenging Republicans to take on transfer payments by minimizing other GOP-suggested cuts. These accusations also go along with a strategy that some have openly accused the Democrats of undertaking.

President Obama’s suggested budget was described in newspapers as everything from “not serious” to “a joke” partly because it failed to address entitlement spending at all. Obama has been accused of playing political games with the deficit; almost daring Republicans to address transfer payments. The theory is that whatever changes the Republicans suggest, Democrats will accuse Republicans of “putting Grandma on a 9 Lives diet”.

My belief is that if Republicans follow my suggestion and eliminate money-pit federal programs first, the Democrats' high-level hypocrisy on the budget will stand starkly highlighted against a background of self-serving demagoguery. If that happens then the corrections to entitlement spending has a chance to be made law.

The 800-pound gorilla won’t go away until he is dealt with properly, but the political game of “Economic Chicken” needs to be made meaningless first. The only way to do that is to address other spending cuts first and to do so brutally.

Congress: Act or Fail

Let’s be clear about one thing. The phrase “reduce the deficit” is a nice way to say “raise the debt more slowly.” Many voters don’t understand the difference between the “debt” and the “deficit” and quite a few think they mean the same thing. It is in everyone’s best interests that people understand the meaning of the terms and why they are so important.

The federal debt is the accumulation of every budget deficit this nation has ever had minus the extremely rare budget surpluses. If we “reduce the deficit” it just means that we added less debt than we added the previous year. Does that really sound like a good thing?

The only way to reduce the federal debt is to have annual budget surpluses. We’re not even close to having a surplus and a surplus has not been proposed by anyone in a position to make it happen.

If annual budget surpluses were a kind of animal, then they would be on the endangered species list and believed extinct. Seeing a federal budget surplus would be like sighting a flock of Passenger Pigeons being chased by Saber-Toothed Tigers as Wooly Mammoths watched. To see a federal budget surplus with the Democrats controlling the US Senate and occupying the White House would be like sighting a flock of Passenger Pigeons wearing I-Pods being chased by unicycle-riding Saber-Toothed Tigers as Wooly Mammoths watched while doing the Hula.

In normal situations, to produce a budget surplus, the federal government must do some combination of three things: increase its income, decrease its spending or sell its assets. In this instance, there is another thing that can and must be done first: we must reduce the risk to American businesses from government.

There is always risk in conducting business, and there will always be risk. Risk can be mitigated, to a degree, depending upon the amount of control the business has over the threat. A farmer can’t control the weather, but he can invest in an irrigation system and buy insurance in case of natural disasters.

What a farmer, or other businessman, cannot do is control a rogue federal government that stubbornly refuses to understand the reality of commerce. President Obama says he wants business growth but his actions are anti-growth. Of course business is concerned and reluctant to spend money in a bad economy with a clueless administration whose identity is wrapped in anti-business policies such as Cap and Trade, Obamacare, increased taxes and increased restrictions on energy production.

If the Obama Administration really wants to encourage business growth, which is a much more efficient way to increase revenues, then it would simply halt its actions that increase risks to business. That course of action would not only increase production, it would reduce costs to business and government.

Another threat to business is the looming federal debt and this is where we must rely on Congress. That debt, and the federal government’s failure to take it seriously, discourage investments. A reduction in spending would allow the private sector access to resources which it could use for productive means.

There are predictions of economic doom if the federal government reduces spending too quickly. It would make sense if economic shocks were to happen, and there is a strong argument that reducing entitlements too quickly would almost certainly be chaotic.

On the other hand, as we rack up more debt daily, we are reducing our available options to control our own future. I mentioned earlier that there are various combinations of things that can be done to begin reducing the debt. The final option is to default on our debt and every day that passes without actions to reduce spending and the debt we are a day closer to complete failure.

Taking bold action in the face of an oncoming crisis is risky. Failure to take bold action in the face of an oncoming crisis is not risky because the outcome is known; it is a guarantee of total failure.

Congress, the time has come: Act or Fail.

The Economy Strikes Back

When it comes to running the country, left wing politicos have more morally corrupt ideas than an imaginative college freshman stranded on a desert island with nothing but Angelina Jolie, Katy Perry and an industrial-size barrel of Wesson Oil. There are two differences though. First, the three castaways won’t spend your retirement funds and your kids’ college tuition money while telling you to “go along or go to jail.” Second, the college freshman won’t spend his spare time trying to run an economy he doesn’t understand while taking some citizens’ money and giving it to other citizens.

I’m not the first to say it, but Congress has a spending problem. I’ve seen cats in a field of catnip who display more self-control. It’s time to free the economy: reduce regulations, reduce spending and get out of the way.

The ugly truth is that no matter how ridiculous or specialized a Congressional spending item is, there is someone who will scream bloody murder if that item is cut from the budget. Understand that someone was influential enough to get that silly item put in the budget to begin with, so chances are someone in Congress will listen when the wailing begins. There is no such thing as a painless reduction in federal spending and that’s what Congress is hoping for. Guess what, Washington? The Great Pumpkin ain’t comin’ this year, either.

To reduce the federal budget is going to be painful, but it must be done. Freezing our spending levels, as President Obama suggested, will not work and neither will timid reductions of spending. Put down the paring knife and pick up the cleaver.

The argument is going to be that it took years to raise federal spending to this level so it will take years to reduce it. That is wrong and a non-starter. The more quickly we reduce spending, the less painful the overall result will be.

It’s not a matter of trimming programs. It’s a matter of cutting entire programs. Programs which are outside the scope of the federal budget need to be completely scrapped. Hello and goodbye to the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, a whole bunch of subsidies and regulatory restrictions that benefit some special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers. And that is the beginning of the beginning.

One thing that can be done that will have an effect within 18 months: “Drill here, Drill now, Pay less.” Directional drilling from existing oil platforms can be used and we can see a domestic oil production increase that soon. In the meantime, drop ethanol subsidies.

Subsidies for ethanol can be immediately scrapped and I’m sure Archer-Daniels-Midland will recover nicely. Less expensive cereals, milk and beef will be the result of canning that failed experiment and American families can use that reduction in food prices. Corn was never, ever the best source of ethanol, but even if we used better sources, such as sugar cane, the government would still have to subsidize ethanol and that’s an expense we can drop. As Thomas Jefferson said, “If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should all want bread.”

This is no time for sacred cows. Fire up the grill and let the slaughter begin – with absolutely no apologies to the PC Police. It’s time to be honest. This is a real crisis. Not the namby-pamby “crises” that liberals evoke every few years. The economy is now our enemy. We abused it in such dire fashion, that I can’t blame it. Debt is about to lay waste to our country and the federal government has been encouraging it to do so for over 70 years.

There are many other federal programs and subsidies that can be terminated immediately. While Congress is at it, they should also look at regulations which are unnecessary and negatively impact businesses. I wonder if the country is ready for “Free the Economy” bumper stickers. I think it’s about time.

The SOTU on Truth Serum

My fellow Americans, tonight I’m going to be straight forward and rather than hold a political rally or berate the judicial branch of government, I’m going to stick to the state of our union.

Let me begin by discussing our foreign relations. We’re involved in two wars in which we are not fighting other countries, but are fighting against religious zealots who wish to destroy our nation, our culture and our right to religious freedom. They cannot defeat us on the field of battle and have chosen to sacrifice innocents through the practice of terrorism.

Their way of winning is to control our actions through fear. With that in mind, I am asking that we develop less intrusives means of screening potential terrorists at our airports and increase interdiction at our borders.

In the past, I gave deadlines for our withdrawal and had to retract those promises because reality is a harsh mistress. The war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan are different. In Iraq, the people have shown a real interest in freedom. Many Iraqi policemen have been killed by suicide bombers, car bombs and IEDs. Still, they continue to sign up to be policemen and serve their country. For this reason, we will continue our commitment to the people of Iraq, but they need to understand that we cannot remain in Iraq over a long period of time. Americans will leave Iraq when we believe it can remain stable on its own.

I know many of you want us to withdraw from Iraq immediately, but we cannot afford to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. To leave now would jeopardize all we have accomplished and leave a free Iraq at the mercy of internal terrorists and oppressive theocracies such as its neighbor Iran.

In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has shown himself to be an opportunist and a coward, unable to commit to the freedom of his people. Karzai has continued his relationship with members of the Taliban, narco-terrorists and drug warlords, such as his own brother. A free country cannot be built on the foundation of such a corrupt state. We will not begin withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan at this time; however, because we need to invade northwest Pakistan where we are fairly certain that Osama bin Ladin is hiding like the coward he is.

While we do not wish to destabilize our ally Pakistan, we also know that the continued presence of bin Ladin will definitely cause the collapse of that government. We are asking the Pakistani government to clear all of its troops from that region until such time as we are convinced that bin Ladin is dead, captured and in our hands, or located in another country. In addition, we ask that civilians offer no resistance if they do not wish to be harmed. We have been patient long enough and we will bring all available resources to bear so that this criminal will be brought to justice.

In the area of trade, free trade only works if it is free on both sides. Our trade agreements with China now hinge upon the opening of China’s markets and proof that they are cracking down on the multi-billion dollar piracy of American trademarks and copyrights, especially intellectual properties such as software, music, movies and patents. This must end or we will close down our markets completely to goods of Chinese manufacture. Currently we have a $200 billion trade deficit to China. They need us more than we need them.

On the domestic side, we are in trouble.

We are approaching our debt limit of $14.3 trillion dollars. Over the past decade we have spent a tremendous amount of money in an attempt to make the country prosperous. That idea, which I was convinced was a good one, has failed. We must allow the private sector to grow. In order to do that, I am proposing three things.

First, I want to meet with a committee of committed deficit hawks from both sides of the aisle. We will consider all things, with the exception of the commitments we have made retirees and those within 10 years of retirement. We will look at all government subsidies and sweetheart deals. As a sign of commitment from our party, I will ask for the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, and related laws, which cause our government to spend far more money than necessary to appeal to our union friends.

Second, I will form a group similar to the Grace Commission to examine regulations and see which ones can be either revamped or repealed to make it easier to do business in this country. We have handcuffed business and asked it to carry far too large of a burden in unnecessary regulations.

To show my sincerity, as of now I am withdrawing my Executive Order restricting the drilling of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, I am asking Congress to withdraw some of the more onerous, previous restrictions on all offshore drilling. I will also ask Congress to come to a compromise about Anwar. We will separate the areas of interests to tourists and reasonable environmental concerns, while allowing small footprint drilling for oil.

Also, concerning energy, I am asking the energy companies to construct three additional oil refineries. We will waive any unnecessary regulations while maintaining necessary controls to protect the environment. In exchange, I ask the oil companies to construct at least two of the three away from areas likely to be impacted by hurricanes.

I will also ask the auto manufacturers to lend us a hand. The American people were generous with their assistance and now we need help. I ask that 50% of all internal combustion engines made in the US, be altered to accept concentrated natural gas as fuel. This will result in lower uses of petroleum and we have natural gas in abundance.

Finally, regarding energy, I will ask Congress to consider a law rewarding retail manufacturers for installing energy stations for electric automobiles in their parking lots. The technology is available to allow consumers to swipe a credit card so that their vehicle can be charging as the customer shops. Enough of these retail outlets across the nation will increase the viability of electric cars and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

Third, this is a much longer term solution, but I will ask for another committee to review our income tax situation. For individuals, sole ownership businesses, partnerships and S-Corporations any person of average intelligence with a high-school diploma and a decent command of the English language should be able to complete a tax form and have 100% certainty that they have accurately completed their forms and paid the proper amount.

In exchange for this, I ask the following from conservatives. All farm subsidies to C-Corporations should be ended as of the end of this fiscal year. Credit Card companies will not be limited in the interest rates they charge, but they cannot change the interest rates on money previously lent to consumers, so that prior balances remain at the same rate of interest. Penalties for late fees can be increased to help compensate for this loss of income.

I also ask for a bill to subsidize medical schools’ expansion and interest free loans to students in medical schools. In return, while I do not favor making malpractice lawsuits go away or capping damages, I do favor limiting them to situations where real malpractice or negligence can be shown. This should help lower doctors’ insurance rates while simultaneously allowing the protection of patients.

Finally, I ask for a real review of our health care system. Republicans and Democrats agree that the current system is broken, but disagree on the solutions. Let’s find the common ground and enact those laws so that improvements can be made.

Thank you and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

California Dreamin'

California has been the Promised Land for explorers, prospectors, hopeful starlets and Dust Bowl refugees. It has mountains, deserts, beaches, rugged coastline and miles of vineyards and fruit tree orchards. It is the home to at least four major cities. Between Hollywood, the L.A. and San Francisco music scenes, top research institutions and Silicon Valley it produces more valuable intellectual property than any other place on Earth. It has an embarrassment of natural resources; it’s celebrated in poetry, prose and music throughout the world. If it were a country it would have the eighth largest economy in the world - and it’s broke.

Anyone who has been paying attention has known that this was coming. Increasing tax rates and burdens on business have resulted in business flight to more accommodating states and a diminished tax base. California has had deficits in the past three years of $24.3 billion in ‘08, $60.0 billion in ’09 and a projected $19.3 billion this year. Despite this, California did not reduce its spending this year, actually increasing spending from ’09 by $300 million. The problem is California’s spending. There seems to be a spending program for every circumstance, real or imagined.

California has temporarily increased income, sales and vehicle taxes while reducing some services. California legislators had projected these actions would produce a balanced budget in ’10 but revenue did not increase as expected. This is no surprise to those who believe that there is some truth in the Laffer Curve.

On November 2nd, California had an opportunity to elect an amazingly successful business woman, Meg Whitman. Instead the Golden State selected former-Governor Jerry Brown, a re-tread who has never held a private sector job, never created a job, and could easily be dubbed, “Mr. Nanny State.”

California’s debt burden grows worse. In July of this year, Moody’s dropped California’s bond rating two steps to BBB. California has the worst bond rating of any US state. For over two years, both pundits and financial experts have openly speculated that California will default on its debt. So far this has not happened but California keeps adding to its debt burden and the new rating makes it even more expensive to borrow.

Do Governor-elect Jerry Brown and the California Assembly have the courage and will to reduce state spending by cutting their extensive social programs? There is no evidence that this will happen. Instead, I believe Brown will call for increased taxes and fees while keeping all, or nearly all, of California’s massive social programs.

After reading Brown’s lengthy paper on job growth, found here on his campaign website, there is a great emphasis on green jobs and education. There is almost no attention paid to actually stopping California’s loss of businesses within the next few years. There is a brief mention of evaluating accelerated depreciation and not charging sales tax on some manufactured goods, but most of Brown’s ideas, if they work at all, won’t be helpful for a decade or more. Brown also promises to review regulations to see what can be made less obstructive to job creation – especially in the field of clean energy jobs, but offers no specifics.

If this is Brown’s plan, it won’t work. Soon, I look for Jerry Brown to head to Washington and lobby for the federal government to bail out California by backing, or purchasing, its bonds. This would result in California bonds becoming more valuable and the rest of us shouldering yet more debt. California is clearly the winner here, but what does it have to offer in exchange?

If GM and AIG are too big to fail, then California is too gigantic to fail. In Washington terms, California has all the collateral it needs: 55 electoral votes. Would any of those 53 US Representatives vote against getting a bailout? After California, only 165 other votes are needed to carry a bailout.

Would a Democrat-controlled US Senate turn down the opportunity to put California deeply in its debt? I don’t think there is the willpower on Capitol Hill to pass on the opportunity. For those in states which are fiscally responsible, get ready to carry another burden in the form of a loan to California or at least be responsible co-signer. Maybe AIG will fund the loan.

It’s ironic that the descendents of Spanish and American explorers, gold hunters, pioneers who pushed on until they saw the sun set over the ocean, and rugged individualists who risked everything are such a bunch of wimps. What happened?

A book could be written on the dangers of the Nanny State and California deserves its own chapter. Appropriately, it could be Chapter 11 or perhaps Chapter 13.

Nine Months

In nine short months, a child conceived today will be a new, living, breathing American citizen. For the child's mother, that nine months will seem an eternity of ill-fitting clothes, lower back pain and being unable to roll over at night. The days will seem to stretch on endlessly, especially the long, hot days of August and she will long for the first week in November. The child will rest blissfully; only occasionally kicking or making itself known. Meanwhile, the world rocks on.

In nine short months, 435 men and women will be elected to the United States House of Representatives. Those 435 people will serve in "the people's House" and hopefully be our most direct connection with our federal government. I say "hopefully" for a reason.

Throughout the past Congressional term, filled with the promise of a large majority in the US House and a filibuster-proof US Senate, Congressional Democrats have done what they do best: look down their collective noses at middle-class American citizens.

Perhaps it's a misunderstanding based on ignorance. I don't see US Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer or Jim Marshall being especially aware of the price of a gallon of milk or even the problems with our public school systems. Somehow I can't see Nancy discussing the merits of .45 caliber bullets versus those of the 9 millimeter or the .40 caliber variety; or Steny raking leaves while chatting with a neighbor over the back fence about last week's Sunday School lesson.

I also can't see any of them, including my Representative Jim Marshall, worrying about our looming national debt because they all voted to increase it. Now I know they'll say that they didn't want to increase the federal debt limit but had to in order for the United States to meet its financial obligations. Well yes, that's true as far as it goes but it doesn't go very far. The reason it doesn't go very far is that Pelosi, Hoyer and Marshall all voted for the earmark-stained spending bill that spent more money than we had.