Calling out BO...

I have no love for either party, but confess I find the fundamentals of the DNC entrenched in Marxist thought (read the Communist Manifesto first, before you argue otherwise). Politicians on either side are going to make statements that sound good when you say it fast -- its what they do best, and I am going to call attention to some of their thinking:

BO claims tax breaks for 95% of Americans -- who only pay 40% of the tax bill. A full 33% pay nothing, another 17% only pay 4%. The one-third do not get tax breaks, because they do not pay taxes -- they might, under BO, get redistributed income, which immediately makes them wards of the state. Why would they vote to change such a system? Taxing the other 5%: they already pay 60% of the tax bill -- only the small-minded would say they are not paying their share already. Go out to dinner with 20 friends, and tell one they MUST pay 60% of the bill for everyone. and if they think that is unfair, the other 19 are considering voting to make them pay more! Raise your hand if you want to be that one with 19 friends like that!

Failed economic policy? Until the screw-up banks making loans to people who historically would not have qualified (why they violated tried and true rules of lending I cannot say for a fact; I have heard merely greed to Congress complaints that the rules were socio-economically biased and the banks had to demonstrate otherwise -- the truth is probably somewhere in between), we were at record highs in the stock market, which fuels businesses, jobs, and retirement funds, and unemployment was under 5%. What is so failed about that? And besides, business is the business of business, not government.

Yes, further investment in offshore drilling is a stop-gap, but necessary to keep energy prices in line with inflation WHILE other energy alternatives are developed. Today though, Democrats have blocked any kind of comprehensive energy plan, crying it only supports "Big Oil", which is not for what Bush has been calling since 2003 (and I am no Bush apologist, this is just a fact). "Comprehensive" means fossil fuels, nuclear energy, solar, hydraulic, co-gen, and wind. The "natural" solutions, which I have followed since my college days almost 30 years ago, remain horrifically expensive. They are only affordable with government tax breaks or subsidies -- which is OUR tax money anyway, so WHY take it from us in the first place? The fact of the matter is this: the "natural" solutions offer low output for high investment, this has been their history. If we want to keep energy prices in check while these are made affordable on the open market for everyone (which I support), then we need to drill in these other areas for the next 10-15 years while these alternatives are developed.

"Restore the United States' reputation in the world": Why do we care? The UN does nothing well unless we are involved. Bush's policy of freedom is the same as JFK's (listen to JFK's inauguration speech). George Washington said, "Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." Who on the planet does not deserve that? You say some cannot govern themselves (Ted Kennedy said this)? The words of Thomas Jefferson, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion."

Health care? "Free" for everyone? ALL Canadians pay 25% of their income for "free universal health care", whether they use it or not. This is a fact. BUT, the distribution of that health care is not "on demand". You are a number, and you queue for health care, no matter what your condition. Tear your ACL, expect to wait months to get it fixed. Have cancer and need treatment? Wait your turn, even if it kills you. I hear this not from the news, but from Canadians themselves. Same experience in the UK and France.

Then there is Al Gore, who swears things would have been different had he been President. The WTC was bombed under his watch, its instigator (Bin Laden) offered up, and he stood by and did nothing. He has never spoken against Clinton for this egregious failure, like a statesman would have done. He would have done nothing except to say it was our fault. Al also proposed taxing gasoline to a nationwide average of $4/gal to encourage conservation, which would have hurt the 95% he purports to protect. But the free market takes prices to that level, and he says it is wrong. Al "I invented the Internet" Gore is an idiot. Why people listen to him supports the notion that critical thinking among the masses is dead.

When McCain makes his speech, I will likewise comment. They both make stupid and untrue statements, and neither party is fit to govern, IMHO. Viva the third and more parties!

Messy, messy...

Our tax system is a mess, no doubt. Increasing taxes is teetering on robbery, and some already call it "legal plunder". I find the following interesting (gathered from many non-profit, non-partisan websites, and their data over the last 10 years):

Almost 1/3 of Americans pay no federal income tax whatsoever (so how can they get a tax rebate?)

Fifty percent of Americans make more than $31,000 per year (and this groups makes 85% of all income), and also pay 96% of the taxes (are they "the rich"?)

The top 5% of Americans (those whose household income is $150K/year) pay 60% of the taxes, while making 30% of the income in the US

The top 1% of Americans (those making more than $380K/year) pay almost 40% of all taxes, while making less than 20% of all income

Is this fair? Is a progressive income tax fair? Maybe (IMHO) unless there is ANY redistribution of income "just because". Doing so makes people wards of the state, and is indeed socialism. But who are the rich? How you define them and how politicians define them are likely very different. Are "the rich" (whoever they are) already paying their disproportionate share, based on the numbers above? When tax breaks are claiming to "help only the rich", who are they talking about? It certainly doesn't and shouldn't help those who pay nothing. "Tax breaks", by definition, only affect those who pay taxes.

Did you know our corporate income tax rate is twice that of our global competitors? Do you understand the implications of that? It means it is less profitable for companies to stay here than to re-locate overseas. We are not talking about cheap labor. My research of many articles indicates our corporations are paying about 40% in income taxes, and their global competition is paying about 20%. Such a tax burden reduces jobs here, and is a disincentive to expand here. Who is to share the blame for jobs going overseas? Congress, who by their taxation of corporations, take almost half of corporate profits for "the government" in their greed.

Our tax situation is a mess, and who has demonstrated any real will to change it?

Politics today

I do not care what your views are, write your Congressmen/women and make them work for you!

Here is what I wrote mine, recently, regarding energy and Pelosi's recent interview with George Stephanopoulos:

Drilling in new places will take 5-10 years to have an impact (I am in the business and know about such things). The 68 million acres of which Pelosi speaks is not necessarily favorable to hydrocarbon accumulation. The more places drilled without economically favorable results, the higher the prices will be -- like any other product! "Big Oil" is only at most a dozen of nearly 1000 companies drilling for oil and gas today. Did you know that fact? Competition? "Big Oil" has serious competition -- and has to buy from them to feed their refineries ("Big Oil" only controls 10%-12% of the world's supply, a market share too small to control anything)!

Record profits -- rhetoric for the math challenged. XOM profit is at a record high, but still a meager 10-12% net -- their costs are over $100 Billion per quarter. Oil was $12/bbl in 1998, gas was $0.80/gal. Raw product (oil) price rose by 12 times while the retail price only rose 5 times by 2008. I will let you do the math on that one -- it'll be a test.

Further, so few talk about the impact of natural gas for our cars, and nuclear power for our electricity -- augmented by solar, not wind (of solar, wind, and waves as energy sources, wind is by far the least reliable). A move in these directions -- all three -- can break our dependence on foreign oil -- if that is the goal (if cheap energy is the goal, fossil fuels are still the cheapest per output of power). Where is the intelligent talk on electrical cars and the disposal of their batteries (will we want these things in our landfills?), the amount of minerals and resources required to build them (some reports indicate they have a much greater negative environmental impact than conventional vehicles in their manufacturing), the much lower than expected impact of their economy due to the long distances to commute? Where is the encouragement (not mandate, not law, but tax-break) incentives for companies to promote telecommuting on a wider scale? The internet can do so much to get people off the road! Where are the calls for tax breaks for homeowners to install solar panels -- not tax rebates, they carry a cost, but a straight up deduction for the cost of installation (perhaps a helpful percentage of the install cost, or deducting the total cost from annual income).

What about co-gen plants that are successfully generating electricity today, without fossil fuels or resources within the food chain?

The number one driver for conservation -- price. Despite all the rhetoric; not rhetoric, really, but exhortations to conserve, leading up to the recent surge in gasoline prices (which actually only brought gasoline in line with inflation over the last 25 years), conservation did not take place until the prices forces it. Why would the Dems want to encourage more consumption by creating consumer subsidies (redistribution of wealth, a nice communist ideal)? And what are these subsidies she claims the oil industry gets? Why do people think all-electric cars are going to be cheap? Their battery production will be expensive, very expensive, and a disposal nightmare. Further, they will increase loading on our electrical power grid and will increase monthly electrical bills significantly -- and so much of our electricity is fossil fuel powered! We go to more nuclear power, electrical cars make more sense altogether -- except for that nasty disposal thing.

Beware the Animal Farm situation created by the Dems and GOP. Solving problems would liberate their traditional constituencies to go elsewhere, politically. How long have the economically challenged voted Democrat? Even when the Dems controlled Congress and the White House, their situation did not change, and has not. What about the smaller government conservatives? What have they gained by voting GOP? None of us are happy nor benefiting from this two horse race. We need more ideas, more parties. Vote an alternative party. Quit believing the Dems and GOP. Give America more voices with your vote. If you are "left", vote Green or Libertarian; if you are more to the "right" vote Libertarian or Constitutionalist; find other parties to support. Whichever party you decide to support, VOTE!

Solutions are not found in sound-bites, nothing is as simple as the politicians are trying to make it sound; be careful who they are calling villains (when bad guys are calling someone else bad guys, who are the real bad guys and why?).

Family facets...

My family and our experiences are like a multi-faceted jewel. At every turn, you get a different view, but it is the same precious stone. One day we celebrate an addition, the next we are in the hospital having birthday cake with an injured family member. We celebrate weddings and graduations together, we mourn losses together. We share struggles and prayers. All of these things are encapsulated in this multi-faceted precious jewel called family...the wealth of our lives.

The weekend...

"Watcha doin' this weekend?"

"Nuthin'..."

"Yeah, my kinda weekend"

Weekends with nothing to do used to be the greatest curse in my life; now it is a great blessing. Work is demanding, more expected everyday, so sliding into a weekend without Friday night to Sunday night sprint races is relaxing, something to which one can look forward...

Places to live...

What determines where one lives? For many of us, it is simple -- we go were our job is. After that determination, we further refine based on our children's educational needs, then perhaps our own needs in terms of socialization, activities, and other "quality of life" parameters.

What about after the job season of ones life is over? Do we then just move to a mapped location of our dream locale and setup house? What about those friends you've enjoyed for so many years, with most of whom you raised your kids? What about your own children, who are most likely to stay "close to home"?

I have always loved the mountains more than the beach, although I grew to hate winters in the same mountains (snow is fine for playing, not for living, IMHO). Yet, as I have grown older, a deeper appreciation of friends, friendships, and family ties have steered me away from my "young man's dream" of living in the mountains, or even retiring to my beloved Kentucky.

I most likely will die in Texas, and although some multi-generational Texans already refer to me as a "Texan", an honor I am happy to embrace for many very good reasons, I'll always be a Kentuckian living in Texas...

Social Networking

First, we did away with welcoming front porches as a networking device. I guess air-conditioning and telephones are to blame. Telephones dominated the networking scene for decades, but they were fed by actual gatherings of people who, in turn, exchanged phone numbers. Eventually, the Internet came along (and porches got smaller, by the way) and e-mail was all the rage -- in business. A few geeks knew about and used IRC, but AOL brought IM to the masses. Still, one only networked with people they already knew, and short of calling them (on a telephone), it was difficult for people expand their realm of contacts outside what they already knew. Then came social networking on the Internet, beginning (perhaps) with sites like Reunion and Classmates, expanding to MySpace, but perhaps more popularized in Facebook. Now, I can browse networks to which I belong to find people I haven't seen in decades.

This is pretty cool stuff, but I think I will build a big front porch, anyway.