The Scoper

Gay Parents

We are spending way too much time on issues regarding homosexuality. Really. And now I am writing about it which will likely eliminate my chances of ever getting hired by some homophobic imbecile. So be it.

I’m not sure why this pisses me off so much. The fact that we are spending time and energy on issues regarding people’s private lives, issues between two consenting adults, is absolutely beyond me when we have several thousand more important things on the Pareto list to deal with. In fact, this shouldn’t even be on the Pareto list. It is a non-issue. It is normal regular stuff. Why can’t we get this through our collective heads? We have the economy. We have world hunger. We have a society that is slowly morphing into simplistic epsilon semi-morons (look that up in Aldous Huxley's book Brave New World). We have 98 degrees outside with a heat index of 110. That and the fact that McDonalds refuses to carry the McRib as a regular part of its menu are ALL more important and, dare I say, more controversial, issues. I dare.

Anyway, there are lots of things about Franken that irritate me. One is I think he lost his sense of humor back in his 40’s (and he had a wicked brilliant sense of humor). But in this case, I applaud him. He heard testimony and READ THE DATA! Take a look at his performance at

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07/20/274032/franken-destoys-focus-on-the-family-witness-exposes-misuse-of-hhs-study/.

Click on the video. He eviscerated Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery. This guy is a homophobic imbecile.

Thank you Al. By the way, loved you in Trading Places.

SAM's the Man

Philadelphia has implemented a plan called SAM, The Small Amount of Marijuana Program and it makes so much sense I double and triple checked to make sure it was actually a government program. It treats arrests for marijuana possession of up to 30 grams - slightly more than an ounce - as a summary offense, rather than a misdemeanor.

The old misdemeanor charge carried a maximum penalty of 30 days' probation or jail time and a $500 fine.

Even under the old system there were not many pot arrests that resulted in a jail sentence. But if you were caught with a joint, you had a permanent criminal record, kind of like that horrid tattoo you got of some Chinese symbols except unlike the tattoo, you can’t hid it from a potential employer under a long sleeved shirt.

The new program has offenders (as defined by possession of 30 grams or less) pay $200 for a three-hour class about drug abuse. After that their record is expunged. No trial, no judge, no court-appointed defense attorneys, no prosecutor, no lab tests to confirm the "leafy green substance" is actually marijuana, no cops getting paid overtime to testify.

"We were spending thousands of dollars for when someone possessed $10 or $15 worth of weed," Seth Williams said of the way marijuana cases were prosecuted when he was elected. "It just didn't make any sense." Seth is the new District Attorney and is responsible for this little fresh breath of common sense.

Approximately 4,160 defendants enrolled in the SAM program during its first year, according to Jodi Lobel, deputy of the D.A.'s Pretrial Division. "We decided to design a smarter way," Lobel said.

Think how much money was saved.

In a related story, there is a chronic (pun intended) shortage of Pringles and snickedoodles in the Philadelphia area. But I digress.

A 2005 study by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard professor of Economics that was endorsed by over 500 economists identified that between $10 – 14 billion of annual savings and revenues if we replace the prohibition of pot with a system of taxation and regulation similar to what we use for liquor.

The fact that we would rather make laws eliminating toys from Happy Meals and not deal with legislation that is costing billions of dollars, has no victims, disrupts lives of average Americans, and is totally ineffective in its intent is just another sign of our society’s perverse avoidance of the sane and rational.

I am a Libertarian and I Live to Crush the Helpless

As we have discussed in previous postings, I belong to no group and especially any that have subjective definitions such as Conservative, Liberal, Communist or Socialist. In fact, there are very few “groups” with which I accept any direct association perhaps with the exception of male, and my love of antiques, music and theater combined with my disdain for any organized athletic event makes that suspect as well.

So I am careful not to call myself a Libertarian. Do I share some philosophy with their formal platform or “statement of principles?” You bet. And the fact that they have a defined set of principles is kind of neat.

So before I talk about crushing the helpless, let’s take a moment and look at some of those principles. These were taken right from The Libertarian Party web site, www.lp.org. Take a saunter over there and give it a tumble. I promise it will not give you the cooties or corrupt your moral sense of right.

1.0 Personal Liberty Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

Can ya argue with that one…really?

1.1 Expression and Communication We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

Come on…kind of attractive don’t you think?

1.2 Personal Privacy Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

Yeah, I know. This is what gets many. Legal drugs….legal prostitution…. Grow up. Think about the reality of eliminating victimless crimes from the books and get back to me. But only after you have really fired up a couple of million synapses working it.

1.3 Personal Relationships Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

Sounds pure and simple. Is it really more complicated than that?

1.4 Abortion Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Sure. Ron Paul is really against this. He’s delivered a few babies in his time and has a thing about it. And this makes my point. Ron Paul is not the Libertarian Party. He is one person. But we tend to take one, or a couple of usually very vocal people, and paint everyone within arm’s reach with the same paint. Please give us few thoughtful souls a bit more credit. Either we agree with the formal platform and realize Ron has strayed a bit from the reservation on this one, or we are individual free thinkers that do not accept the pure dogma of any one group.

There are 22 other principles that are worth your time to take a look at. You may be surprised that they involve such matters as the fact that the government should not subsidize any form of energy, property rights are very important, immigration should be much, much more open, and no discrimination of any type is to be tolerated.

I am betting that if you read these principles with an open mind, you will agree with virtually all of them.

So let’s get to the part that I love to crush the helpless. When people come to their own erroneous conclusion and want to label me a Libertarian, the next reflexive response is that as a Libertarian I love to crush the helpless. Well, maybe not crush them but certainly they think we believe we should ignore them and let them wither away. Thin the herd. Let the strongest survive. Cast the weak to the side.

I guess the only question I can ask is how do you get there from here? What is it in the credo that leads people to think that people who subscribe to the Libertarian philosophy must be heartless when it comes to the helpless? Libertarians simply believe that it's wrong to take by force money from one group of people and give it to another group of people. It’s that simple. In fact, any privately funded charity would qualify as Libertarian because it is based on people giving voluntarily.

Some people like to be affiliated with a group and will follow that group’s entire philosophy without question. Kind of like religion. There are some fundamentalists that believe what the bible says word for word. Then there are others that don’t. And like most things, my money would bet that the vast majority of people that consider themselves religious do not take the bible word for word as legit. Then there are some people who do not associate with any specific group, but pick and choose from what they think is right. They form their beliefs based on the buffet of life’s knowledge. I like to think of myself in this group.

A quote from Ayn Rand is so appropriate here. She is so maligned by people who have not read her books or studied her philosophy. This ignorance leads people to associate her with the Libertarian cause. Nothing could be further from the truth. To make several of my points in one swoop, I will quote Ms. Rand;

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.

[Ayn Rand, “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It]

So let’s form our opinions about a person or even a particular group based on finding out what that person really believes or actually studying the group’s philosophies. Let’s not take other people’s rash generalizations about a group as fact. Let’s engage in dialog, be thoughtful, and form our own opinions.

Sad Times for Happy Meals

Circumstances, or more specifically Monet Parham-Lee is forcing me to write again about a subject I have already harangued you about, twice, and that is the government getting involved in telling us what to eat. Monet has initiated a lawsuit against McDonalds claiming they use toys to market directly to children. Helping her in this waste of our time and tax dollars is the CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest). You have to look up this group on your own to learn about the size and the special type of their battiness.

Monet seems to have a problem with some of the most fundamental parenting skills. But I cannot possibly explain how inept she is better than she can herself. Here is what she said, "We have to say no to our kids so many times and McDonald's makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat."

Not to be “out dimwitted” by Monet, the executive director of CSPI, Michael Jackson accused McDonald's of "one of the most insidious marketing practices–dangling a toy in front of a small child." Jacobson called the practice "unfair, deceptive and illegal' in California and many other states. "The food industry has a responsibility not to intrude into families by using sleazy marketing techniques getting kids to pester their parents."

Cry...laugh...your choice.

DREAM On...

Since the Republican election “landslide” of 2010 it has never been clearer that I am neither a Democrat nor Republican.

Nor a Libertarian, socialist, communist, Green Party or Red Hat member, Freemason, Symbionese Liberation Army soldier or Mousketeer.

But I digress.

I have written before about the concept of absolute value. In mathematical terms, the absolute value of a real number is the numerical value of the number regardless of its sign. And in sign, I mean + or – not Sagittarius or Aries.

The Republicans and Democrats are both, in absolute value terms, idiots. One is blue, one is red. One is a donkey and one is an elephant. But take away the husk, that hard candy coating, and what do you have? Idiots. Simple. Or at the risk of being redundant, simple idiots.

Both parties, most of the major news outlets and I dare say most of you, dear reader(s) have thrown away careful thought and relied on how “our team” positions themselves to determine what we think.

I say this after seeing another piece of half-way decent legislation suppressed by a group of sheep-like politicians. The Dream Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act) would offer legal status to students who came to the United States illegally before they turned 16 and have lived here for more than five years. To gain legal status they would need to complete high school, and then two years of college or military service. Once implemented the act would legalize about 65,000 students a year.

65,000 students a year! And for that the Republicans are stonewalling the effort to get this passed.

Our birth rate is barely, just barely, keeping up with the mortality rate. We have taken direct actions to limit immigration by ridiculously low quotas and making the process incredibly lengthy and expensive. We have taken indirect action to limit immigration by ignoring constitutional rights, doubling our unemployment rate through fiscal mismanagement and creating an environment that discourages entrepreneurial risks, making this a less fun place to live.

So instead, let’s do everything we can to become a European-like land of inbred knuckleheads with carpel tunnel syndrome that is a result of our hands constantly being outstretched for a handout.

How can we forget what made this country as great as it is/was (you select)? We had people who were hard working appreciative risk takers come to this country to establish a new base of roots. We had a bunch of people from different places come to our country and have to work hard to overcome the local biases and prejudices that all of them faced. And this created character. And now we have the ability to have a group of 65000 select themselves every year. These will be people who have lived here at least 5 years and completed either 2 years of college or military service. I don’t know about you but I want more people like that I don’t give a damn where they come from.

Getting back to the idiots, please don’t take my word for it. Allow the cretins to speak for themselves.

Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California said: “It is not being cold-hearted to acknowledge that every dollar spent on illegal immigrants is one dollar less that’s spent on our own children, our own senior citizens and for all those who entered this society who played by the rules, who paid their taxes and expect their government to watch out for their needs before it bestows privileges and scarce resources on illegals.”

Dana must have graduated from the Zero Sum Game School of Malthusian Economics.

Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Georgia, said the act “exploits our broken system. … It opens the door to criminal aliens.”

Yep…all those criminal aliens that went to two years of college. Oh yeah, I forgot about those felons that completed military service.

Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said the act would take jobs away from American citizens, especially legal minorities struggling for work.

Based on Lamar and Dana’s thinking, I bet they would support abortion rights. That would limit the population increase and reduce the amount of people we have to “support” with jobs. Oh wait, they are Republicans. Let me check my scorecard. Right, they’re against that one.

If our immigration policy was more enlightened we would be a better country with a larger population of creative people that wanted to work hard. I am certain of this.

Immigrants remain a source of economic and social vitality for the United States today as they have throughout our history. We sometimes forget where we came from or where our fathers and father’s fathers came from. The DREAM ACT is just a small step in the right direction. I hope we can look beyond the rhetoric of small thinking people, disregard the “team” we are on, and get this legislation approved. But I fear that the only way this will happen is if the Democrats trade something of equal or higher political value. Perhaps I am a graduate of the Zero Sum Game College.

Charles Grassley Should Get a Real Job

Several national newspapers today reported that Charles Grassley, the ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee was placing “under scrutiny” Dr. Stephen Ondra, recently appointed by the Obama administration as the Senior Policy Advisor to the VA.

Before I prattle on about Chuck, I must issue a disclaimer. Dr. Ondra performed surgery on my spinal column that corrected a birth defect. At the very least this surgery allowed me the continued use of my legs (which I have grown quite accustomed to and enjoy on a daily basis) and possibly saved my life (which I have also have become quite accustomed to and enjoy on a more sporadic basis). It was surgery that the head of neurosurgery at Evanston Hospital determined too complex for him and consequently referred me to “the only surgeon he knew that could do it.” That surgeon was Dr. Ondra. He told me that Ondra would only take on surgery that other surgeons deemed too difficult. He would also accept new patients that had previous “botched” surgeries. In other words, this is one highly skilled and respected surgeon.

So forgive me my bias.

Grassley is concerned that Dr. Ondra received fees for consulting from Medtronics. And by “fees” I mean a pile of it, about $3.7 million to be precise.

Medtronics is a very large medical device manufacturer with headquarters in Minnesota. They pay many leading scientists and physicians consulting fees. In fact, they pay out a huge amount. As reported by Medtronics themselves, they paid out $15.7 million to various doctors in the fourth quarter of 2009 alone. If you want some details take a look at http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/medtronic-divulges-it-paid-docs-over-15-7-million-royalties-and-consulting-fees/2010-06-01.

Why or why didn’t I stay in the pre-med program? Oh yeah, I would have never made it into medical school.

But I digress.

Grassley says “such payments are legal, but says they raise questions about whether Ondra's advice at the VA is vulnerable to potential conflict of interest.” He is still concerned despite the fact that Ondra ended his relationship with Medtronics 11 months before he became the VA’s senior policy advisor.

Eleven months!

After Chuck requested information about Ondra, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki responded in writing stating that “before taking the VA job, Dr. Ondra correctly and fully disclosed his finances under the rules of the Office of Government Ethics, had no conflicts regarding Medtronic or any other firm when he assumed his VA duties and has none since."

Let’s take a moment to learn more about the man Grassley is targeting.

Stephen Ondra was born in 1957 in Bellville Illinois to Shirley and Duane. Attended the United States Military Academy at West Point. Continued military service while attending Rush Medical College in Chicago. Completed his internship and residency training in neurological surgery at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC. In 1990-91, he was deployed to Saudi Arabia where he served with distinction during the 1st Gulf War winning a Bronze Star and Army Commendation medals. After returning from the war, he was transferred to Walter Reed where he eventually served as Director of Spine Surgery. Leaving the service in 1994, Dr. Ondra pursued private practice in Ann Arbor, Michigan and served on the Clinical Faculty at the University of Michigan. In 1996, he joined the faculty of Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Ondra served as the Residency Program Director, Vice Chair, Director of Spine Surgery in Neurosurgery, Director of the Spinal Deformity Fellowship, Director of Spine Research, Medical Director of the Neuro-Spine Intensive Care Unit and is an Associate Professor of Neurological Surgery. Dr. Ondra has authored numerous papers and book chapters. He is a highly sought after speaker and is considered a world expert in many areas of spine surgery. Highly regarded for his expertise in the treatment of spine conditions, Dr. Ondra has served as a Board Member of the American Association of Spine Physicians, on the Executive Committee of the AANS/CNS Joint Section of Spine and Peripheral Nerves and Education Committee of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. In 2004, Dr. Ondra became the first neurosurgeon to be granted membership in the Scoliosis Research Society.

Dr. Ondra is currently directing several research projects, including: 1) finite element modeling of the spine, 2) motion analysis of the spine in gait, and 3) sagittal alignment of the skull and cervical spine and its relationship to overall spinal pelvic balance and function. These three projects combine to improve the understanding of the spine as a complex part of the locomotor unit, with a goal of developing a better understanding of spinal disease and its impact on function. In addition to basic science projects, Dr. Ondra has developed a technique for precise correction of spinal deformity based on basic trigonometric calculations. Other clinical research projects include alternative bone graft methods, the use of osteobiologics in the surgical setting and in new pedicle access technology.

Now, let’s take a look at Chuckie’s accomplishments.

Born in 1933 in New Hartford, Iowa to Ruth and Louis.
Graduated in 1955 from Northern Iowa State and got his MA there in 1956. Hmmm…one year, must have been a rigorous program. During the 50’s he worked as a sheet metal worker and in various factories. Then he went into politics.

Story over.

Really, he was in state government from 1958 to 1974. He then served three terms as a congressman and since then, a Senator. Yep, that’s it.

Oh wait, there was more. See what prejudicial reporting can leave out.

He has five children and is a member of The Family, the Christian political organization that organizes the National Prayer Breakfast.

Take a moment to compare and contrast the accomplishments of these two men. One is currently holding the other accountable for his actions. It is a crime that he can do it. It is a crime that he is taking tax payers’ money to do it. It is a crime he is not focusing on things more important than this, like learning if he could ever really survive by some other method than suckling at the government teat.

But again, I admit that I left something out of Chuckie’s oh-so-impressive vitae. Chuck has raised over $7.5M in contributions since 2005. Who are his five largest contributors? According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the industries that have been the largest contributors to Grassley during his political career are health professionals ($1 million in contributions), insurance industry ($997,674), lawyers/law firms ($625,543) and pharmaceuticals/health products ($538,680). His largest corporate donors have been Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance, Amgen biotech company and Wells Fargo bank.

Could that list impact his effectiveness as one of the leading members of the Senate Finance Committee?

But let’s be fair and look at some more of Grassley’s accomplishments.

1. In March 2009, amid the scandal involving various AIG executives receiving large salary bonuses from the taxpayer-funded bailout of the corporate giant, Grassley sparked controversy by suggesting that those AIG employees receiving large bonuses should follow the so-called 'Japanese example', resign immediately or commit suicide. After much criticism he has not backed off of those comments, dismissing them as rhetoric

2. In 2005, Charles Grassley received a 7 percent rating on the Republicans for Environmental Protection's (REP) environmental scorecard.

3. Senator Grassley received a 10 percent rating on the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) scorecard for his pro-environment votes on the issues of renewable energy and farm conservation programs.

4. According to the Disabled American Veterans, Senator Grassley has the third-worst voting record in the entire US Congress (both House and Senate combined) on veterans issues, earning a 40 rating.

5. In May 2009, Grassley cosponsored a resolution to amend the US Constitution to prohibit flag-burning. (screw that 1St Amendment thing…)

Uh, Chuck…about that Japanese example…

No Fries in Frisco

On the very day that McDonalds resurrected the glorious McRib sandwich, San Francisco passed a law to restrict the level of sodium and fat and require fruit or vegetables in any meal that includes a toy or other premium directed towards children.

That sentence is so ludicrous all on its own, I do not think I can come up with anything more witty or funny about it. I mean really. A city government is telling its citizens two things. First, that eating fatty high calorie food and insufficient fruits and vegetables is not healthy. And second, you are just too stupid to understand that so we have to make that decision for you. Thank you for voting for me and I hope I can count on your support for my reelection when I hope to pass laws against Bic lighters because despite the warning on the label about not lighting them in your mouth, you are just too slow witted to understand that and I must save my fellow San Franciscans from torch tongue.

What’s next? No pack of lick-on-tattoos in my Cracker Jacks? No yo-yo in my Captain Crunch? And what about those cool little gifts we get in our Christmas poppers? Rather than have the small, cap-like charge explode when you pull the ends will they require that when the popper is pulled a piece of paper emerges that says, “Bang!” or it’s no toy for you?

I could site that the government has no business telling you what to eat. I could tell you that it will increase bureaucracy, remove your freedom of choice and most important of all, it will not work.

But I have already told you that.

I refer you to my September 8th, 2009 posting “The US’s Largest Mass Murderer Remains Free.” (http://scottperlman.typepad.com/weblog/2009/09/index.html).

It's a Plan, Dammit!

A presidential 18 member bipartisan commission lead by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and former Democratic White House official Erskine Bowles released a draft of a plan that would significantly reduce the federal deficit. It is comprehensive and while I may have minor arguments with it here or there, I would be willing to forgo even discussing those to expedite its passage and implementation. It would reduce the deficit to 2.2% of GDP by 2015, which is quite sustainable. For reference, the deficit was 8.9% last year.

It is very complete and leaves virtually no stone unturned.

And that is probably why it has about as much of a chance of surviving as a hot dog in front of Joey Chestnut.

The following is a summary of the proposal with some of my comments in bold. Come on, you know I couldn’t just put it out there without some of my witty and savvy editorial analysis.

SPENDING CUTS - Would reduce discretionary spending (programs like defense and law enforcement that are set by Congress each year) in fiscal 2012 to 2010 levels; impose 1 percent cuts in each of the next three fiscal years In 2015, defense spending would be $100 billion lower and nondefense spending also $100 billion lower than envisioned in the White House's current budget scenario

Keep in mind that a 1% reduction is more than a 1% reduction. The plans generally assume a 3 to 5% year to year increase. But seeing as our major wars are against people who put rusty nuts and bolts into cans as their weapon of choice, I think we could dial down some of the spending.

• Eventually bring government spending down to 21 percent of gross domestic product, from its current level of 24 percent of the economy

So obvious no comment is necessary and yet by stating that a comment I did make. When did I start sounding like Yoda?

• Automatic cuts would take effect at the end of each year if Congress exceeds spending caps
• Set up bipartisan committee to eliminate outdated and inefficient programs

My gosh, why do that?

• Stretch out budget cycle over two years

Increase predictability is a good thing. I would be for going to four years.-

Sample cuts include:

freeze pay for federal workers; reduce overseas military bases by one-third; cut federal workforce by 10 percent; slow growth of foreign aid

We have over 30,000 troops on the ground in Korea. And on top of that most of these people are very, very close to the border, where on the other side North Korea has about one piece of conventional artillery per US troop. Before we can turn that land lead by inbred demented political leaders into the wasteland they really want it to be by their actions, they will be able to get enough shots off to do some real slaughtering of our guys. Cut the bodies on the ground, increase those in the air and sea and I think you will reduce costs and increase effectiveness and if push comes to shove, save American lives. Repeat in Europe.

Slow growth in foreign aid should be translated to stopping foreign aid to any country that cannot guarantee effectiveness of the aid. Private citizens spend more time looking at the charities to which they contribute to insure that they are efficient spenders then we do in the billions we send to governments whose leaders make Bernie Madoff seem like an honest bloke with the best interest of his clients as his mantra.

OVERHAUL TAX CODE

• Would eliminate all of the $1.1 trillion exemptions currently in the tax code, such as the mortgage-interest deduction and the earned-income tax credit

Won’t do much to stimulate the housing market but it is about time. While we are at it, let’s get the government out of trying to guess what is good for the economy and eliminate laws that encourage specific behavior like buying houses.

• Lower and simplify individual income-tax rates: 8 percent for those with annual incomes below $70,000; 14 percent for those with incomes up to $210,000; and 23 percent for incomes above that level

Lower and simplify? Really? Look, in reality with this will go the elimination of many opportunity for deductions. But it still excites the hell out of me. Man oh man….anyone got a cigarette? Will someone order a pizza?

• Lower corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 26 percent

Encourage businesses to reinvest? Get more people to work? What are they thinking?

Treat dividends and capital gains as ordinary income - Set aside $80 billion for deficit reduction - Gradually raise gas tax by 15 cents starting in 2013 to pay for transportation spending

We must increase taxes somewhere. This makes sense to me as it will put pressure on decreasing demand and ties spending on transportation to those that use it.

• Abolish the alternative minimum tax

Look..I am 53 and can’t recover as fast as I used to. Make mine a pepperoni and break open another pack of Camels.

REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS

• Would pay doctors and other providers less for seeing patients under government programs like Medicare and Medicaid
• Cap damages in malpractice suits

Otherwise known as tort reform. The libertarian in me hates this. The pragmatist in me wins.

• Require Medicare participants to pay more costs themselves

Inevitable. No way around it. Law of physics. Demand going up. Supply of young labor to pay for it going down. Something has to break and I want someone there to take care of it when it does.

• Require lower costs for brand-name drugs covered by government programs
• Expand successful cost-containment programs
• Strengthen independent oversight board
• If costs grow more than 1 percent faster than the economy after 2020, require president to propose further cost cuts or a robust public health insurance option

OTHER SAVINGS

• Would reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year

As much as I respect the hardworking farmer, enough is enough. We all better be prepared to pay more for food but in the end, we will be better off.

• Revamp consumer price index, used to calculate benefit increases, to better reflect actual rate of inflation
• Increase employee contributions to government retirement programs

Stop that! I am exhausted. If I smoke another cigarette or eat another slice of pizza I will increase medical costs…

Postpone military retirement programs and make them take effect after age 60

I highly respect the military and all that serve but someone has to tell me why this is bad.

SOCIAL SECURITY

• Would revamp the retirement program to ensure its long-term stability, but separately from the deficit reduction effort
• Add minimum benefits for poorest retirees
• Increase benefits for older retirees
• Require more affluent earners to pay more

I wish it was not necessary but it is. Gut it up.

• Raise the retirement age to 68 in 2050 and 69 in 2075 Why in the hell wait until 2050 and 2075.

  What is wrong with now!

• Exempt those who work physically demanding jobs; allow them to retire at 62

I Have the Winds

There’s something I really hate about long drives on unending interstates yet something I love about drives lasting the same amount of time on winding back country roads, as long as there is not a small town cop with a radar gun who thinks he is Sheriff Buford T. Justice and you may be hauling Carrie, Junior Buford’s wife-to-be who has had second thoughts about waltzing down the aisle with sonny boy.

But I digress.

Having recently enjoyed some long drives in the country I saw some pretty large wind farms. When I first saw the multitude of huge windmills slowly turning I thought they were beautiful, almost majestic. Seemingly pure of purpose symbolized by their all white coloring. My first response was almost visceral; I felt a certain pride, a certain feeling of “aha, we have found a solution to our fossil fuel problem.” Here we have these big mega-generators using natural, clean, wind turning and turning to create the power we need to heat our homes and power our factories.

Their presence loomed large, turning, turning, turning, seemingly without effort or noise (I was travelling in excess of the 70 mph speed limit and my windows were closed). They worked and worked, minute by minute and hour by hour without complaint, without so much as emitting a belch much less any nasty greenhouse gasses. Then, like a metaphorical slap in the head by one of those bad boy blades, I was jolted back to reality. How much energy did it take to fabricate this gyrating behemoth? How much fossil fuel did it take to move that thing and put it in place? And how does the cost of electricity compare between these Don Quixote ferocious giants and fossil fuel burning plants and nuclear facilities?

No surprise, the business world is way ahead of me. The NYT published an article by Matthew Wald and Tom Zeller in today’s (11/7/10) paper titled, Cost of Green Power Makes Projects Tougher to Sell. They tell one story about a Michael Polsky who owns a large wind farm. Last year, Michael had no problem selling his electricity to the local power company at a premium. But this year, the state decided that it was not in their constituents best interests to pay more for power from Mike and his windmills than the same power generated by fossil fuels.

This scenario is being repeated across the country and by the third quarter of this year, wind generator installation have fallen 72% from last year’s levels. Bottom line is that electricity generated by wind is more expensive than that generated by fossil fuel. Why buy something that is exactly the same as something else for more money?

Mr. Polsky calls these decisions short sighted. I call them ultimately rational.

Would you voluntarily pay more for an item that is indistinguishable from another item because someone said it would be better for you in the long term with no guarantee that it would be so?

The article states, “Companies that make solar cells and wind machines argue that a national energy policy is needed to guarantee them a market that will allow their industry to develop. Clean power will be an important industry globally for years, they say, and if the United States does not subsidize renewable energy now, it risks falling far behind other countries. “ When you read, “national anything policy” think taxes, think of some group of politicians who wouldn’t know the difference between a Darrieus model and the horizontal-axis variety artificially directing money and resources to something that they think is in your best interest.

And if you proceeded along that road and bought the more expensive version of electricity because that charlatan Polsky (and some government mandate) convinced you that things would be better in the future and we wouldn’t “risk falling far behind other countries,” is it possible that by doing so you could actually be causing more harm?

In the famous words of that oh-so-hot but much maligned Sarah Palin: “You betcha.”

If we decide to violate what I characterize as natural physics by spending money on wind power when it is more expensive than fossil fuel, we are redirecting resources artificially. Rather than allowing technology and innovation to find the real long term solution, we are deciding what it is before it is proven.

It may be wind power. It may be solar. And it may be something we have not thought of yet and that is exactly the point.

Despite what one may think after the recent QE2, where Ben “get them printing presses rolling” Bernanke xeroxed about $600B into the economy, investment capital is not infinite in supply. So if we violate the natural physics of this money looking for the real “best investment” in power by telling it we have the answer before we really do, we may be diverting it from the real, real long term solution.

Choosing to subsidize wind power will provide it a financial crutch that may prohibit it from ever really walking on its own. Let these wind farm investors squirm. Let them feel the forces of nature motivate them to become more efficient; to naturally find solutions to increase the efficiency and reduce the cost of wind powered energy.

Isn’t one bad chemistry experiment like ethanol based fuels enough?

The US’s Largest Mass Murderer Remains Free

Arthur Garson continues to lead a normal life, walking among us, working, meeting his obligations as the Dean of University of Virginia's School of Medicine.  Yet he is an admitted mass murderer.  A mass murderer of such epic proportions the overused term, epic proportions, hardly does it justice.  He has admitted to killing more people than all of the serial killers in US history combined.  He has admitted to killing more people than who lost their lives in 9/11 and the Iraq war combined. He has publically admitted to killing over 100,000 people. And he says he does it every year!

An article in the September 6th Chicago Tribune quotes Dr. Garson as stating, “We are killing 100,000 people per year so something needs to be done.”

Yes, something indeed needs to be done.

We need to capture this man before he continues killing anymore.  Once we have him in custody, we will turn him over to Chicago’s finest who will use their billy clubs (I mean law enforcement batons) on his head as if they were practicing the Gene Krupa rim shot. He’ll soon tell us who the other person or persons are that he is referring to in his confession when he said “We are killing….”

What Dr. Garson is really referring to is that the abundance of inexpensive calorie rich food is killing hundreds of thousands of people per year. So the “we” is actually the royal “we.” No, wait.  Just the opposite.  The “we” is you and me and the average plebian who really enjoys a deep fried Twinkie or his fried pork rinds covered in nacho cheese sauce.  And speaking of that nacho cheese sauce, am I crazy of does that stuff you get at quick marts, ball parks and various festivals resemble the stuff found in infected body cavities?

But I digress.

So Dr. Garson and a gaggle of do-gooder politicians, misguided civic minded citizens and probably some lobbyists from the UFDA (United Fresh Produce Association, I kid you not) are all revving up that legislative engine, that has had the governor stripped out by an all Democratic Congress, to issue a penalty or a “fat tax.” Their intent is to increase the cost of these foods to reduce consumption.  The theory that it will work is based in proven economic concepts.  The higher the price, the lower the demand. Hell, it’s worked for booze and cigarettes so why not?

Well, as you may have guessed by now, I have just a few reasons why not.

So as not to disappoint those that know me, let’s start with the one that everyone expects.

Government should not interfere with people’s lives and tell them what to eat and what not to eat.

Do I have to whip out the “slippery slope” line?  People, get with it.  Look about you and see what is happening.  First there is prohibition on drugs.  Yes, I said drugs because its prohibition is also intrusive and not effective. Then there was prohibition on alcohol.  That worked out about as well as the one on drugs so it was repealed. Then they decided to tax it.  Why?  To help reduce its consumption so that “we” would all be healthier?  Nope.  They hit booze with a tax to hide the fact that it is a tax.  A large portion of the population does not consume that much liquor so why not?  Then they taxed the hell out of tobacco products (and don’t forget about the silly label requirements).  Why?  Same reason.  And now they are talking about junk foods and sugared pop (soda for all you non-Midwesterners).  Where will it stop?  We have had various local governments try to stop the consumption of froix gras (Chicago) and transfats (NYC). Could it go beyond that?  Yeah, real easily.

Could affect poor people disproportionately.

Rich people can afford the tax or the cost of the more expensive alternatives. Poor people can’t.  This concept is just like the people proposing the tax, pretty simple.

Additional bureaucracy is undesirable.

What is the definition of “junk food?”  OK, I got the Snickers and Twinkies.  How about those Pork Rinds?  They were touted as an excellent snack by the Atkins people. What about dried fruit like raisons?  OK, raisons are not a junk food.  How about that invention I love, the Craison?  It is a dried cranberry but sugar coated.  Does the sugar override the dried fruit?  Would it matter how much sugar is on it to be called a junk food or not?  And if raisons are OK, what about chocolate covered raisons.  And for that matter, the frozen chocolate covered banana?  I know the answer, the FDA needs to establish a panel of experts that will issue rulings about what qualifies as junk food and what does not.  Perhaps they will use a “calories per ounce” concept.  No, then something like olive oil would be considered junk food and we now know how healthy that is for us versus the olive oil of our past which was deemed unhealthy…by the same people who deemed the current stuff healthy.  Are you getting that subtle point?

I see a manual akin to our tax code, to the point and easy to read.

And speaking of tax codes, an entire new industry was born to help people deal with filling out the tax forms and to figure out the best ways to avoid paying taxes.  And so there will be if this legislation is passed.  There will be experts that companies can pay to make sure their product is not labeled as “junk.”  Remember this, individuals looking to maximize their own wealth are smarter than the government, every time and without fail.

Interfere with personal liberties and freedom of choice

For me, this is the Big Kahuna, and I don’t mean the role played by Cliff Roberston in that 1959 classic film, Gidget. It is a bit redundant with my first point about the government not interfering, but it is worth mentioning again.  I understand all the arguments.  Either you are paternalistic and believe you should help those poor dolts who don’t know any better or you are self engrossed and claim that the extra costs for health care are causing your rates to go up.  Either point is so lame I cannot muster up the energy to tell you why.  Figure it out.

Let us return to the slippery slope for a moment. Today the do-gooders jump on sugar and snack foods.  What will tomorrow bring?  Seriously.  Do you think it is improbably that they start to tax other dangerous activities like rock climbing, motorcycle riding, white water rafting?  How about taxing loggers?  There are an average of 117 deaths per 100K of those folks.  Should be a law against them, don’t you think?

But let’s get to the final point which is the most important.

IT WILL NOT WORK.

Several economic studies of the effects of actual price increases have concluded that a 10% tax on sodas would prompt consumers to reduce consumption by 8% – 11%. How impactful is that?  A clinical trial of 810 adults found that reducing soda intake by 100 calories per day was linked to a half pound weight loss after 18 months.

1/2 pound after 18 months?  Great!  That new Speedo I got will finally look good on me!

Wait, we have more.  How about the State of Maine’s experience? They imposed a snack tax of 5.5%.  They did it to raise money. But what happened to the weight of Mainers (or would that be Mainiacs?)?  The rate of adult obesity in the state doubled from 10% to 20%. Shot and a goal!

Or is that a shot and a beer?

As was stated in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14120903), “The distance between junk food and the medical costs of obesity means that a calorie tax could have unintended consequences. A new theoretical paper in the Journal of Public Economics even suggests that a tax on junk food could increase obesity, especially among physically active people. If junk food, which is quick and easy to obtain, becomes relatively dearer, people will spend more time shopping for fresh ingredients and preparing food at home. That could leave less time for exercise.”

Here comes that recurring theme of mine.  The government has more important things to occupy their time with than what I eat. If Dr. Garson and the rest of the misguided citizens who have enough time on their hands to look over my shoulder while I quaff a 12 pack of Moon Pies really want to help, let them spend their own money educating us about the impact of eating those Little Debbie delights. That lesson will hopefully stick to us as well as consuming those snack cakes adhere to my hips and thighs.