Bernard Madoff, perpetrator of the crime of the century that spanned probably three decades (and two millennia), was yesterday sentenced to a measly (if maximum) 150 years in prison for his multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Madoff's defense attorneys had sought a laughable 12 years, which would have offered the scoundrel the possibility of seeing freedom at the ripe old age of 83.
Manhattan District Court Judge Denny Chin threw the book at Madoff in order to send a clear message to the world that a man capable of such "extraordinary evil" should be shown no leniency. Judge Chin said he was especially moved by a letter he received describing how Madoff conned an 86-year-old widow by putting his arm around her and told her not to worry, that her money was safe with him. The judge also noted that he had not received a single letter from friends or family coming to Madoff’s defense. Madoff's thousands of victims are estimated to have lost $13 billion to nearly $65 billion of their wealth. The rest of us have lost our faith and trust in our financial system, our government's ability to protect us and in humanity itself.
Does a 150-year imprisonment represent real justice for Madoff? Burt Ross, a Madoff victim and a former mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who lost $5 million with Madoff, said he was satisfied with the sentence and that Madoff deserves to go to his grave "an unmourned man." However, in a letter to the court, Mr. Ross also wrote that Madoff's crime "far transcends the loss of money, it involves his betrayal of the virtues people hold dearest—love, friendship, trust—and all just so he could eat at the finest restaurants, stay at the most luxurious resorts, and travel on yachts and private jets. He has truly earned his reputation for being the most despised person living in America today." Mr. Ross's words have persuaded me that much more needs to be done not merely to punish Madoff but to learn from his crime, prevent its recurrence and to restore our faith in our financial system and in each other. (Mr. Ross's full letter invokes vivid imagery from Dante’s The Divine Comedy, is available at The Daily Beast and is well worth reading in its entirety.)
Keeping Madoff from being murdered by any one of his victims and allowing him to spend the rest of his natural life in prison, at taxpayers expense, is not nearly enough punishment, especially if Madoff ends up in anything less than the most horrific penitentiary imaginable. Madoff has robbed thousands of their life savings, their families of their dreams and has caused some to take their own lives.
Has he shown any remorse for his repeated and continuous acts of betrayal, fraud and complete indifference toward the welfare of others? I think not. His courtroom speech shortly before sentencing was a half-hearted plea for his own leniency and a manifestation of self-pity. A true act of contrition would include, at minimum, his full disclosure of how he perpetrated the crime and an identification of others, including members of his own family, who assisted him. He also needs to either relinquish the remainder of the wealth he has stolen over the years and secretly stashed away somewhere, or convince us there is none.
Our legal authorities need to show Bernard Madoff no mercy unless and until he fully cooperates with them and answers all the requisite questions. Until that time, his incarceration should be as unpleasant as legally possible and should allow each and every one of his victims an opportunity to torment him each and every day until he comes clean or dies.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Obama’s Healthcare Prescription for America
America's understanding of healthcare reform needs to move beyond news headlines and 30-second sound-bites toward a deeper understanding, and Wednesday night’s ABC-TV presentation by the president -- Prescription for America -- did little to further that cause. The president seemed to be over his head talking about the issue, which probably explains why the audience appeared distant, bored and even catatonic. Most of the audience questions and anecdotes were off-point and not relevant to the big picture and the president's comments seemed at times to be incoherent and confusing. ABC’s news anchors Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer did their best to focus and clarify the discussion, but even they were unsuccessful keeping the session on track. It was 60 minutes of regurgitated Obama-ganda and not his best effort.
President Obama asserted that one-third of current healthcare costs are unnecessary, but didn't elaborate. He should have offered some details, such as where those unnecessary costs reside in the system. Is it with the doctors, the hospitals or the drug companies? Is it the routine doctor visits or the (hopefully) once-in-a-lifetime hospital stays that are causing the unnecessary costs? The president also said “we know what works and what doesn’t work” in providing healthcare, but offered no examples of either. One of the factoids posted on a slide before a commercial break indicated that 50% of America 's healthcare costs can be attributed to heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Important, big picture findings such as that deserve some commentary and clarification, wouldn't you agree? Specific answers and examples might have helped set the stage for serious discussion and debate, which was the stated purpose of his presentation. As important, they might have given the growing number of skeptics in America confidence that their political leaders and bureaucrats actually know what their talking about on the healthcare issue.
Furthermore, I was amazed that the president could talk for an hour about healthcare reform without even mentioning tort reform, which many believe is needed to contain healthcare costs going forward(and many other costs in our economy). If he is serious about reforming healthcare, he needs to put aside the long-standing allegiance of the democrats to the civil trial lawyers of America who represent a major party constituency.
Tort reform refers to making changes to our civil justice system that would limit the amount of, and monetary damages arising from, litigation. Should victims of medical malpractice be compensated for their misfortune? Absolutely, but does the average settlement need to exceed a million dollars, and should that practice be allowed to paralyze and potentially bankrupt our healthcare system? Anyone seriously attempting to tame our healthcare cost burden must at least put tort reform on the table for discussion. Serious omissions such as that undermine the administration’s credibility and confirm our worst suspicions about how politics can distort our nation’s most important institutions.
Some democrats contend that America 's economic survival depends upon successful healthcare reform and just as many republicans contend that democrat proposals for reform will push us further into an economic abyss. Most disturbing, however, is that lawmakers from both sides of the aisle seem to be approaching the problem piecemeal and from the perspective of what will sell politically, rather than what will successfully reform our healthcare system.
The Obama administration promised government transparency and post-partisan decision-making. Now would be a good time to make good on its promise. We need to engage in a substantive discussion of the real issues surrounding healthcare reform, not just those that will lead to a politically expedient solution.
President Obama asserted that one-third of current healthcare costs are unnecessary, but didn't elaborate. He should have offered some details, such as where those unnecessary costs reside in the system. Is it with the doctors, the hospitals or the drug companies? Is it the routine doctor visits or the (hopefully) once-in-a-lifetime hospital stays that are causing the unnecessary costs? The president also said “we know what works and what doesn’t work” in providing healthcare, but offered no examples of either. One of the factoids posted on a slide before a commercial break indicated that 50% of America 's healthcare costs can be attributed to heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Important, big picture findings such as that deserve some commentary and clarification, wouldn't you agree? Specific answers and examples might have helped set the stage for serious discussion and debate, which was the stated purpose of his presentation. As important, they might have given the growing number of skeptics in America confidence that their political leaders and bureaucrats actually know what their talking about on the healthcare issue.
Furthermore, I was amazed that the president could talk for an hour about healthcare reform without even mentioning tort reform, which many believe is needed to contain healthcare costs going forward(and many other costs in our economy). If he is serious about reforming healthcare, he needs to put aside the long-standing allegiance of the democrats to the civil trial lawyers of America who represent a major party constituency.
Tort reform refers to making changes to our civil justice system that would limit the amount of, and monetary damages arising from, litigation. Should victims of medical malpractice be compensated for their misfortune? Absolutely, but does the average settlement need to exceed a million dollars, and should that practice be allowed to paralyze and potentially bankrupt our healthcare system? Anyone seriously attempting to tame our healthcare cost burden must at least put tort reform on the table for discussion. Serious omissions such as that undermine the administration’s credibility and confirm our worst suspicions about how politics can distort our nation’s most important institutions.
Some democrats contend that America 's economic survival depends upon successful healthcare reform and just as many republicans contend that democrat proposals for reform will push us further into an economic abyss. Most disturbing, however, is that lawmakers from both sides of the aisle seem to be approaching the problem piecemeal and from the perspective of what will sell politically, rather than what will successfully reform our healthcare system.
The Obama administration promised government transparency and post-partisan decision-making. Now would be a good time to make good on its promise. We need to engage in a substantive discussion of the real issues surrounding healthcare reform, not just those that will lead to a politically expedient solution.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Healthcare Reform Should Begin With Medicare
The president spoke about healthcare reform again yesterday. The president seems to enjoy reciting the same talking points repeatedly, especially the innocuous platitudes everyone agrees with. We all agree healthcare is a huge problem and a major stumbling block for our economic recovery and long term prosperity. We all agree something needs to be done. We all agree reform will not occur unless we take action. The president added a factoid I had not heard before that, without reform, in 30 years $1 out of every $3 our economy produces will go to pay healthcare costs. (Within a decade it will be $1 out of $5.)
The president says he wants healthcare insurance for everyone in America, dispensed through a system that will allow everyone to select their own doctors and their own care, while saving taxpayers boat loads of money over the long term. How can anyone argue with those goals? However, is such a healthcare insurance plan possible? If the president thinks so, he needs to start showing us exactly how it would work. It is not obvious how his plan can add nearly 50 million of the currently uninsured to a reformed system that will maintain quality and availability of healthcare while saving taxpayers money. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reforming healthcare will increase our budget deficit more than $1 trillion over the next decade, and speculates that it will ultimately be paid for with $600 billion from raised taxes and approximately $400 billion in cost savings from cuts to Medicare. Raising taxes makes no sense in this economy and Medicare cost savings will likely reduce the quality and availability of care for seniors.
The president denies allegations that he is seeking a single-payer insurance program sponsored by government, and claims his plan will enable us to keep our current insurance programs, if we so choose. However, some democrats and some republicans are skeptical, but for different reasons. Some democrats are betting that no one will want to keep their current insurance once they see the superiority of a government-sponsored plan. They believe the American public will abandon its current insurance plans and opt into the government plan. The republicans expect the government to artificially under price their plan until they drive private profit-making concerns out of business. Either way, America will end up with a single-payer insurance program, sponsored by the government. It will be the government’s way or the highway.
The obvious prototype for a new government-sponsored insurance plan is unfortunately Medicare, which continues to be a huge financial drain on our government and taxpayers. By the way, some believe that the availability of private insurance to supplement Medicare is the main reason Medicare works as well as it does. What happens if those private supplemental plans disappear?
Prudence and common sense should suggest that the president should do his best to fix Medicare before embarking on his ridiculously ambitious plan to overhaul our entire healthcare system. It should occur to him that if he is successful in demonstrating that he can devise a better and more cost effective Medicare program for our seniors, we would be far more confident in his plan to reform healthcare for the rest of us.
The president says he wants healthcare insurance for everyone in America, dispensed through a system that will allow everyone to select their own doctors and their own care, while saving taxpayers boat loads of money over the long term. How can anyone argue with those goals? However, is such a healthcare insurance plan possible? If the president thinks so, he needs to start showing us exactly how it would work. It is not obvious how his plan can add nearly 50 million of the currently uninsured to a reformed system that will maintain quality and availability of healthcare while saving taxpayers money. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reforming healthcare will increase our budget deficit more than $1 trillion over the next decade, and speculates that it will ultimately be paid for with $600 billion from raised taxes and approximately $400 billion in cost savings from cuts to Medicare. Raising taxes makes no sense in this economy and Medicare cost savings will likely reduce the quality and availability of care for seniors.
The president denies allegations that he is seeking a single-payer insurance program sponsored by government, and claims his plan will enable us to keep our current insurance programs, if we so choose. However, some democrats and some republicans are skeptical, but for different reasons. Some democrats are betting that no one will want to keep their current insurance once they see the superiority of a government-sponsored plan. They believe the American public will abandon its current insurance plans and opt into the government plan. The republicans expect the government to artificially under price their plan until they drive private profit-making concerns out of business. Either way, America will end up with a single-payer insurance program, sponsored by the government. It will be the government’s way or the highway.
The obvious prototype for a new government-sponsored insurance plan is unfortunately Medicare, which continues to be a huge financial drain on our government and taxpayers. By the way, some believe that the availability of private insurance to supplement Medicare is the main reason Medicare works as well as it does. What happens if those private supplemental plans disappear?
Prudence and common sense should suggest that the president should do his best to fix Medicare before embarking on his ridiculously ambitious plan to overhaul our entire healthcare system. It should occur to him that if he is successful in demonstrating that he can devise a better and more cost effective Medicare program for our seniors, we would be far more confident in his plan to reform healthcare for the rest of us.
Friday, June 12, 2009
News Media Bias: Do You Know What's Really Going On?
Technology makes the instantaneous and virtually ubiquitous observation of world events possible, but evidence of bias in the news media can make you wonder whether you can believe what you see and hear. World news is being transmitted by a global media, through a prism of sometimes deliberate and sometimes inadvertent bias.
The most timely and blatant example of bias in the media continues to be the coverage of President Obama, which began in earnest during his presidential campaign and has gathered momentum ever since. The mainstream media’s favoritism for Barack Obama during the general election was even more egregious than that alleged by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the democratic primary. Studies show that candidate Obama received more media coverage overall than other candidates and much less negative press than his opponents. The media’s extraordinary deference to the president often makes us wonder if the media is acting more as an eager extension of his public relations team than as a group of supposedly impartial journalists. They appear to be advocating rather than reporting on the president’s activities.
Members of the media would have us believe that the appearance of bias is a figment of our imaginations, but do not publicize the fact that more than a third of them identify themselves as liberal compared to less than ten percent who claim a conservative orientation. The media also does not readily admit that most journalists tend to vote emphatically democratic, and have done so for decades. Most interesting, however, is that although they fail to see bias in themselves, more than two-thirds of reporters, editors, producers, and executives of mainstream media outlets readily agree that Fox News is decidedly conservative. Are we really supposed to believe that the media’s obvious orientation toward liberal ideas and democratic candidates has no bearing on its objectivity? You may draw your own conclusions.
In addition to the obvious lopsided political orientation of the media generally, mounting commercial pressures in journalism are also causing many media sources to succumb to sensationalism in order to capture market share, attain popularity in ratings and ultimately to make profits. Is it any wonder that we question the integrity of our news media?
Bias takes many forms. Facts may be distorted in news stories or may be conveniently omitted. Newsworthy stories may be completely excluded from newspapers or TV programs or buried so far back in printed media, or so late in televised programs to insure that they are glossed over or missed altogether. Other sources of bias may be less obvious, such as when stories load up with expert testimony to support one viewpoint, or when stories use language to “spin” the facts to favor one side over another.
What is the average person to do in order to get to the truth? First, know the difference between news commentary or editorials and the news itself. The former is, by definition, opinion and likely to be biased; the latter is supposed to offer a balanced view of all sides of a story. Unfortunately, traditional news outlets, such as The New York Times, NBC, and many others, have blurred the line between traditional news reporting and opinionated commentary. On cable TV, chances are high that if a “news program” is interesting and entertaining, it is probably news commentary. Offerings such as “Hardball,” with Chris Matthews and “Hannity’s America,” with Sean Hannity are examples.
Second, ascertain the most knowledgeable sources and focus on individuals who substantiate their viewpoints with concrete examples or experience. I have found only a handful of politicians, government officials, industry experts, and media pundits that actually provide thoughtful insight and meaningful perspective on topics and issues. (Many commentators speak in generalities, make non-committal comments or repeat the mainstream view.) Verify the credibility of the sources you choose by researching their backgrounds and their affiliations on the internet. Understanding their backgrounds and professional ties may help you to verify expertise and identify conflicts of interest that may bias a source’s perspective on a topic.
Third, limit your news venues, such as newspapers, televised programs or internet-based media, to those offering the most substance and a broad range of perspectives. In addition, for national political, economic and societal matters, you should consider viewing C-SPAN, which televises congressional hearings, important speeches and other events on numerous topics. Although a time-inefficient medium, C-SPAN provides a valuable opportunity to hear directly from people creating the news, without the filter of a third party.
These are difficult times and decisions are being made today by our leaders that will have a far-reaching and profound effect on our lives for many years to come. As citizens of a free democracy, we have both a right and an obligation to get to the truth.
The most timely and blatant example of bias in the media continues to be the coverage of President Obama, which began in earnest during his presidential campaign and has gathered momentum ever since. The mainstream media’s favoritism for Barack Obama during the general election was even more egregious than that alleged by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the democratic primary. Studies show that candidate Obama received more media coverage overall than other candidates and much less negative press than his opponents. The media’s extraordinary deference to the president often makes us wonder if the media is acting more as an eager extension of his public relations team than as a group of supposedly impartial journalists. They appear to be advocating rather than reporting on the president’s activities.
Members of the media would have us believe that the appearance of bias is a figment of our imaginations, but do not publicize the fact that more than a third of them identify themselves as liberal compared to less than ten percent who claim a conservative orientation. The media also does not readily admit that most journalists tend to vote emphatically democratic, and have done so for decades. Most interesting, however, is that although they fail to see bias in themselves, more than two-thirds of reporters, editors, producers, and executives of mainstream media outlets readily agree that Fox News is decidedly conservative. Are we really supposed to believe that the media’s obvious orientation toward liberal ideas and democratic candidates has no bearing on its objectivity? You may draw your own conclusions.
In addition to the obvious lopsided political orientation of the media generally, mounting commercial pressures in journalism are also causing many media sources to succumb to sensationalism in order to capture market share, attain popularity in ratings and ultimately to make profits. Is it any wonder that we question the integrity of our news media?
Bias takes many forms. Facts may be distorted in news stories or may be conveniently omitted. Newsworthy stories may be completely excluded from newspapers or TV programs or buried so far back in printed media, or so late in televised programs to insure that they are glossed over or missed altogether. Other sources of bias may be less obvious, such as when stories load up with expert testimony to support one viewpoint, or when stories use language to “spin” the facts to favor one side over another.
What is the average person to do in order to get to the truth? First, know the difference between news commentary or editorials and the news itself. The former is, by definition, opinion and likely to be biased; the latter is supposed to offer a balanced view of all sides of a story. Unfortunately, traditional news outlets, such as The New York Times, NBC, and many others, have blurred the line between traditional news reporting and opinionated commentary. On cable TV, chances are high that if a “news program” is interesting and entertaining, it is probably news commentary. Offerings such as “Hardball,” with Chris Matthews and “Hannity’s America,” with Sean Hannity are examples.
Second, ascertain the most knowledgeable sources and focus on individuals who substantiate their viewpoints with concrete examples or experience. I have found only a handful of politicians, government officials, industry experts, and media pundits that actually provide thoughtful insight and meaningful perspective on topics and issues. (Many commentators speak in generalities, make non-committal comments or repeat the mainstream view.) Verify the credibility of the sources you choose by researching their backgrounds and their affiliations on the internet. Understanding their backgrounds and professional ties may help you to verify expertise and identify conflicts of interest that may bias a source’s perspective on a topic.
Third, limit your news venues, such as newspapers, televised programs or internet-based media, to those offering the most substance and a broad range of perspectives. In addition, for national political, economic and societal matters, you should consider viewing C-SPAN, which televises congressional hearings, important speeches and other events on numerous topics. Although a time-inefficient medium, C-SPAN provides a valuable opportunity to hear directly from people creating the news, without the filter of a third party.
These are difficult times and decisions are being made today by our leaders that will have a far-reaching and profound effect on our lives for many years to come. As citizens of a free democracy, we have both a right and an obligation to get to the truth.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Stock Market Future: Will the Cyclical Bull Slay the Secular Bear?
Even with a robust rally since March, the stock market has been net flat for more than a decade, in fact since the tech boom of the mid 1990s. The flat market performance is understandable because the run-up after 9/11 was more the result of financial engineering than it was due to fundamental economic growth. Artificially low interest rates, aggressive lending practices, exotic financial products and an overdose of false optimism “primed the pump” and propelled the market higher during those years. Those conditions evaporated in 2007 along with the balance sheets of some of the world’s most venerable business organizations and took the market’s heady performance with it.
The cyclical bull market refers to short term, intermittent rallies within a longer term, secular bear market trend. It is difficult to know when the bear will turn bullish, or what will ultimately cause the turn in the market and the global economy. However, against the strong headwinds of global recession and the urgent need to revamp and reduce the debt structure of our global economy, the catalyst for turning the market bullish will need to be far-reaching and transformational in nature.
That catalyst will not be the result of intentional action by government or the private sector, although government has so far been successful in delaying the seemingly inevitable collapse of our global economy and financial system. Various stimulus plans, the relentless growth of the money supply by the world’s central banks and the worldwide bailout of key financial institutions have probably kept us from complete financial disaster for the past couple of years. All government can do now is to implement policies and programs that encourage the private economy to invest capital, take risks and expand operations. The objective should be to boost investor and consumer confidence in order to keep the economy and stock market afloat until the relentless hand of progress propels us forward.
The impetus for propelling the market to new highs will likely come from some major technological advancement, in the same way that personal computers and the internet caused the market to boom some 15 years ago. In the early 1990s after more than a decade of solid performance, many predicted the stock market was doomed to a severe downturn. However, by the mid 1990s until the decade’s end, the market exploded like never before in its entire history. Many will give credit to the Clinton administration’s policies and programs, but the tech boom was obviously the driving force behind our prosperity during that period. This market will need that type of economic juggernaut to clear away the cobwebs and dispel its current funk.
Some new “game changing” technology will need to come along that will improve our lives. Perhaps it will be a new source of renewable clean energy, a cure for a major disease, a new technology to control weather, a commercially viable method of desalinating sea water, a discovery from space with the potential for widespread commercial application, or, who knows, it might result from a visit from outer space itself!
Our potential to advance our way of life is as strong as it has ever been, even though we face severe global economic conditions, limited natural resources, and a climate of global political unwillingness to manage our planet responsibly. It is the best reason I can think of to stay invested in this market.
The cyclical bull market refers to short term, intermittent rallies within a longer term, secular bear market trend. It is difficult to know when the bear will turn bullish, or what will ultimately cause the turn in the market and the global economy. However, against the strong headwinds of global recession and the urgent need to revamp and reduce the debt structure of our global economy, the catalyst for turning the market bullish will need to be far-reaching and transformational in nature.
That catalyst will not be the result of intentional action by government or the private sector, although government has so far been successful in delaying the seemingly inevitable collapse of our global economy and financial system. Various stimulus plans, the relentless growth of the money supply by the world’s central banks and the worldwide bailout of key financial institutions have probably kept us from complete financial disaster for the past couple of years. All government can do now is to implement policies and programs that encourage the private economy to invest capital, take risks and expand operations. The objective should be to boost investor and consumer confidence in order to keep the economy and stock market afloat until the relentless hand of progress propels us forward.
The impetus for propelling the market to new highs will likely come from some major technological advancement, in the same way that personal computers and the internet caused the market to boom some 15 years ago. In the early 1990s after more than a decade of solid performance, many predicted the stock market was doomed to a severe downturn. However, by the mid 1990s until the decade’s end, the market exploded like never before in its entire history. Many will give credit to the Clinton administration’s policies and programs, but the tech boom was obviously the driving force behind our prosperity during that period. This market will need that type of economic juggernaut to clear away the cobwebs and dispel its current funk.
Some new “game changing” technology will need to come along that will improve our lives. Perhaps it will be a new source of renewable clean energy, a cure for a major disease, a new technology to control weather, a commercially viable method of desalinating sea water, a discovery from space with the potential for widespread commercial application, or, who knows, it might result from a visit from outer space itself!
Our potential to advance our way of life is as strong as it has ever been, even though we face severe global economic conditions, limited natural resources, and a climate of global political unwillingness to manage our planet responsibly. It is the best reason I can think of to stay invested in this market.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
If Obama's Right, Everything You Know Is Wrong!
Are you having trouble wrapping your mind around some of the Obama administration's falsisms about the economy, energy, healthcare, national defense/security and immigration? You're not alone. Some personal favorites are highlighted below:
The government bailout of GM will save the company. It is not clear what "save" means in this context. The government has invested and/or committed $50-60 billion to GM for a 60% ownership share that's virtually worthless, so it would appear that "saving" GM doesn't include getting taxpayers their money back. The consensus is that the government will need to spend billions more continuing this charade in the future. The government is also forcing GM to build "green" cars Americans don't want to buy and won't be able to afford, because of the costly new technology and the still bloated labor cost structure of the UAW, the autoworkers union.
America doesn't torture, and, besides, torture doesn't work. I don't approve of torture any more than the next guy, but if the choice is to subject a few alleged scoundrels to minutes of discomfort in an effort to save thousands of innocent people from death, what would you do? The Bush administration claims that the government has documented proof that its methods (torture or otherwise) have worked and have saved many lives. We need to see that evidence to decide for ourselves and should not have to rely on interpretations from Nancy Pelosi and others. Torture may not always work but doing nothing certainly never works. Those who claim torture doesn't work obviously never thought about what it must be like to be subjected to torture themselves.
Healthcare reform will save us money in the long run. Is there excessive waste and corruption in our current healthcare system? Absolutely, and the Obama administration should immediately seek a private industry solution to the problem. Expecting the government to cut out waste and corruption in an enterprise and improve productivity and efficiency is a little like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Have you been to a post office lately? Do you really want to spend several years and waste trillions of dollars to prove the obvious?
Wind farms and solar energy will help us achieve energy independence. This is pie in the sky nonsense, even if we devise a way to harness the hot air from a perpetually bloviating Congress and place mirrors in space to focus and concentrate solar energy into productive use on earth. Some are considering the latter and we all should consider the former, but while wind power and solar energy is clean, these technologies cannot begin to address our energy needs. Everyone knows nuclear power is the cleanest and most effective medium term alternative to solving our energy needs, although nuclear waste poses a significant environmental concern to some. If energy independence is a serious goal, nuclear energy should certainly be part of the solution. Also, any plan for near term energy self-sufficiency must also include expanding our own oil, natural gas, and coal resources, which are still plentiful .
Likely Page Break
Reducing our national defense budget will make us safer. Spending money on defense may not necessarily improve our national defense, but neither does cutting defense spending, especially when the main tenet of the new plan seems to be to apologize to our enemies. Being "mean" to our enemies may anger them, but does anyone really believe that being "nice" to terrorists that think nothing of killing themselves is really going to make them stop terrorizing us? Did you ever confront a schoolyard bully? How did being nice work out for you?
Raising taxes on investments will not discourage investment capital. Really? Do you like paying sales tax when you go shopping? The fact that empirical evidence shows that lowering investment taxes actually raises tax revenue doesn't seem to faze this administration in the least. After the extreme market fallout of the past two years, the government should encourage private investment back into the market by all means possible instead of doing the opposite.
Building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico will not reduce illegal immigration. A wall may not guarantee border security, but common sense suggests that if you make it harder to traverse an area, it's going to be something of a deterrent. Preliminary evidence already suggests that extending the wall is helping keep out drugs and illegal aliens.
Many of the beliefs of the Obama administration seem to fly in the face of simple common sense, which apparently isn't so common anymore. The last time we took leave of our common sense we ended up with (and are still battling) one of the worst global economic calamities mankind has ever seen. Do we really want to repeat the mistake?
The government bailout of GM will save the company. It is not clear what "save" means in this context. The government has invested and/or committed $50-60 billion to GM for a 60% ownership share that's virtually worthless, so it would appear that "saving" GM doesn't include getting taxpayers their money back. The consensus is that the government will need to spend billions more continuing this charade in the future. The government is also forcing GM to build "green" cars Americans don't want to buy and won't be able to afford, because of the costly new technology and the still bloated labor cost structure of the UAW, the autoworkers union.
America doesn't torture, and, besides, torture doesn't work. I don't approve of torture any more than the next guy, but if the choice is to subject a few alleged scoundrels to minutes of discomfort in an effort to save thousands of innocent people from death, what would you do? The Bush administration claims that the government has documented proof that its methods (torture or otherwise) have worked and have saved many lives. We need to see that evidence to decide for ourselves and should not have to rely on interpretations from Nancy Pelosi and others. Torture may not always work but doing nothing certainly never works. Those who claim torture doesn't work obviously never thought about what it must be like to be subjected to torture themselves.
Healthcare reform will save us money in the long run. Is there excessive waste and corruption in our current healthcare system? Absolutely, and the Obama administration should immediately seek a private industry solution to the problem. Expecting the government to cut out waste and corruption in an enterprise and improve productivity and efficiency is a little like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Have you been to a post office lately? Do you really want to spend several years and waste trillions of dollars to prove the obvious?
Wind farms and solar energy will help us achieve energy independence. This is pie in the sky nonsense, even if we devise a way to harness the hot air from a perpetually bloviating Congress and place mirrors in space to focus and concentrate solar energy into productive use on earth. Some are considering the latter and we all should consider the former, but while wind power and solar energy is clean, these technologies cannot begin to address our energy needs. Everyone knows nuclear power is the cleanest and most effective medium term alternative to solving our energy needs, although nuclear waste poses a significant environmental concern to some. If energy independence is a serious goal, nuclear energy should certainly be part of the solution. Also, any plan for near term energy self-sufficiency must also include expanding our own oil, natural gas, and coal resources, which are still plentiful .
Likely Page Break
Reducing our national defense budget will make us safer. Spending money on defense may not necessarily improve our national defense, but neither does cutting defense spending, especially when the main tenet of the new plan seems to be to apologize to our enemies. Being "mean" to our enemies may anger them, but does anyone really believe that being "nice" to terrorists that think nothing of killing themselves is really going to make them stop terrorizing us? Did you ever confront a schoolyard bully? How did being nice work out for you?
Raising taxes on investments will not discourage investment capital. Really? Do you like paying sales tax when you go shopping? The fact that empirical evidence shows that lowering investment taxes actually raises tax revenue doesn't seem to faze this administration in the least. After the extreme market fallout of the past two years, the government should encourage private investment back into the market by all means possible instead of doing the opposite.
Building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico will not reduce illegal immigration. A wall may not guarantee border security, but common sense suggests that if you make it harder to traverse an area, it's going to be something of a deterrent. Preliminary evidence already suggests that extending the wall is helping keep out drugs and illegal aliens.
Many of the beliefs of the Obama administration seem to fly in the face of simple common sense, which apparently isn't so common anymore. The last time we took leave of our common sense we ended up with (and are still battling) one of the worst global economic calamities mankind has ever seen. Do we really want to repeat the mistake?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)