Thursday November 5, 2009 in the early afternoon there was a terrorist attack at the U.S. Army's Fort Hood.  The apparent sole-perpetrator was an Islamist who gunned down 43 people, killing 13 and wounding another 30.  The victims were Fort Hood military personnel, soldiers either preparing to ship out for duty, soldiers having just shipped in from duty, and some bystanders.

It is no surprise here that CNN, ABC and PBS "news" people, et al, are reporting this  as a possible case of PTSD with the shooter as victim.  After all, the shooter is Muslim, a devotee of the religion of peace.  After all, what could have set him off to do something so crazy?  And there's also the matter that this would have to be a brand-new disorder.  "PTSD" would have to stand for "pre-traumatic stress disorder" since this psychiatrist hasn't done anything yet other than talk with people.  Of course, when deployed, he'd be in the rear, not in combat.  Such PC drivel is standard stock in trade for these folks.

What is of surprise to me, however, is the handling of this Islamist by the United States Army.  Up until July, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was psychiatric fellow at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland and a captain.  In late Spring he received both a poor performance review and a promotion.  Following graduation from Virginia Tech in 1997, Hasan enrolled in the military's Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences in Bethesda.  Following that schooling he did an internship, then a residency, then a six-year fellowship, all at Bethesda.

In his off hours for all of those years Hasan gave speeches, chastising infidels, and imploring conversion to Islam.  He was combative both on-duty and off-duty, and explicit regarding his disagreement with American involvement both in Iraq and Afghanistan.  According to an aunt, he had sought a discharge from the Army.  He was not a closet Islamist.

Was it an actionable clue to intelligence people when  Islamic men enrolled in pilot training, but didn't want to learn take-offs and landings?  I think the clues here were as clear and as actionable for U.S. Army superior officers and the clues were repeated and repeated by Hasan for years.  What made it clear to Hasan that it was time?  Impending deployment overseas to support a war against Islamists.

Nidal Malik Hasan resided within the U.S. Army and "prospered" there for a decade, became an officer, was even promoted to the rank of major.  Enlisted -- even sgt. majors -- and even lieutenants and captains had to salute him and follow his orders.  He wasn't just allowed to infiltrate the mammoth Fort Hood Army base; he was placed there.  And as an obvious radical Islamist was even not proscribed from owning and possessing personal firearms and ammunition.  The wolf was in the hen house.

Do we expect the "news" media to kneel at the altar of PC crapola?  Do we expect such from college professors?  Do we expect such from k-12 government-school teachers?  Do we expect such from the Hollywood elites?  Do we expect such from an Obama and a Pelosi and a Reid and a, well you know the roster?  Yes.  Yes. Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  Do we expect such from the ranking officers of the U.S. Army?  We'd better not.

About a half-century before The Great Depression philosopher and “classic liberal” professor, William Graham Sumner, of Yale developed a lecture against “progressives” titled “The Forgotten Man.” “As soon as A (a progressive) observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B (another progressive), and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine . . . what A, B, and C shall do for X.” Sumner said that what was wrong was the indenturing of C to the cause. C is the forgotten man, the one who pays.

In FDR’s first great speech he promised to champion “the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.” At that moment in 1932 presidential candidate Roosevelt flipped the meaning of “liberal” on its head, ending the focus on individualism and substituting a focus on groups, reinstituted slavery (C), and trash-canned the Constitution. FDR went to war against C (mostly private enterprise) and substituted X for C as Sumner’s “forgotten man”. Still today – three-quarters-of-a-century after FDR’s speech – liberals (new meaning) obsess about groups. They make as X such as Blacks, Hispanics and Latinos, Gays and Lesbians, the Disabled; refer to them as “communities”; and try to make them “vote for a living” rather than work for a living (as individuals do).

Atop the list of groups or communities for liberals is "The Poor". Aside from the fact that the Constitution does not enumerate any power to the federal government to rob from Pete (C) to pay Paul (X), there are other problems with liberal (new meaning) thought. First, except for the small percentage which is mentally or physically disabled, poverty is a behavioral disorder. Second, poor today doesn’t mean poor tomorrow and visa versa. Third, the average poor person in America today is richer and wealthier than (a) the average middle-class person in, say, France today, (b) the average middle-class person in America in1960, and (c) the average rich person in most of the world today. Fourth, they’re fat.

Only about an eighth of persons in the lowest quintile of earners remain there after two decades, and many are in the third or fourth quintile. Some from the top quintile go bankrupt, lose a business, and drop into the lowest . . . temporarily. For a young person the formula for not being poor is simple. First, graduate from high school, even a government school. Second, get and keep a full-time job, work hard and improve skills. Third, get married before bringing a child into the world, stay married, and don’t have a child until it can be afforded . . . by you, with your money, not Pete’s (C’s) money.

Many Baby Boomers learned as teenagers an “entitlement mentality”, thanks to FDR’s New Deal. Then as those youngsters were approaching adulthood, locking in their fundamental values which would guide their adult lives, the New Deal got supersized by LBJ and his Great Society, and then the Hillary Rodhams became A’s and John Kerrys became B’s. Being “on welfare” got mainstreamed for Xs who didn’t follow the young-person formula (society’s Pauls) and paying for welfare became a growing tax and burden on Cs (society’s Petes). Even at that, a recent Knoxville, Tennessee mayoral candidate called for a “living wage” for X’s, this despite the top 50 percent of earners paying 96 percent of all federal income taxes. Giving money to "The Poor" doesn’t reduce poverty one bit. Behavior modification will. Learn the formula. Follow the formula. Discipline.

“The rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer”, is the consensus. Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards says, “. . . there are two Americas, not one . . .” Democrat presidential candidates all echo in sync. Obviously not buying the conventional wisdom, I wrote October 14, 2007 that a high percentage of earners in the lowest quintile had moved up even to the middle quintile or higher during the last two decades; and that some from the top quintile had gone bankrupt. And I wrote that for a young person the formula for not being poor is simple. Did I get letters? Of course, the writers who claimed they couldn’t get out of poverty had all violated at least two proscriptions from my formula. Former Texas congressman Tom DeLay once said, “Demagoguery beats data.” Nonetheless, let us forge forward with some data.

A U.S. Treasury report, published in November 2007, confirms that Democrat prexy candidates and consensus are wrong and that Pete is right. Between 1996 and 2005 income earners over age twenty-five increased their earnings in real dollars by an average of 24 percent. Of those who were in the lowest earnings quintile in 1996, their earnings grew by 90.5 percent by 2005, almost double. The second-lowest quintile earners had their earnings grow by 34.8 percent. The third, fourth and fifth quintile folks achieved gains of 23.3, 16.6 and 10 percent respectively. The actual data, then, suggest that while the rich keep getting richer, the poor (of 1996) for the most part (a) aren’t poor anymore and (b) are getting richer even faster than the rich. The conclusion would be even more dramatic if earners under age 25 were included, and if “other income” were counted. (Welfare transfer payments, subsidies, IRA payouts for retirees, etc. are about 75% of “income” for “the poor”.)

There’s a lotta class and wealth envy in America these days. Demagoguery achieves that. So for those who can’t be happy unless the evil rich are getting hosed, here are more data. Splitting the top quintile further, of those in the top ten percent in 1996 their earnings grew by a mere 2.9 percent while the top five percent lost 6.8 percent. The top one percent lost 25.8 percent of their earning power during those ten years. Is that cheering I hear from the whiners? A return to the demagoguery I see and a rejection of the data? Treasury research data show that: (1) Being poor for most folks is a life stage (young, unskilled and inexperienced) or temporary condition (lost a job or business or just got whacked by a house fire or medical emergency). (2) Talking about “the poor” ala Edwards, Clinton, and Obama makes as much sense as talking about “the pregnant”. They’re both temporary conditions, not groups or communities. (3) At least between 1996 and 2005, the sorta-rich kept getting slightly richer while the super-rich kept getting poorer while the poor kept getting richer and the middle class wasn’t doin’ bad either. Herein repeated is the young-person formula for not being poor. First, graduate from high school, even a government school. Second, get and keep a full-time job, work hard and improve skills. Third, get married before bringing a child into the world, stay married and don’t have a child until it can be afforded – by you and with your money, not Pete’s money. I recommend teachers share this (data, not demagoguery) and discuss this with every freshman in high school. Except for someone with a major disability, poverty is a behavioral disorder. It’s a choice. Behaviors have consequences.

The previous tableaux have applied for decades. America has been a land of opportunity for those who were industrious and made smart choices. Illegal discrimination has been subliminal, for the most part unintentional, and most injurious to the discriminator. Since January 20, 2009 – and to a lesser extent in the couple of post-election months preceding – the landscape has radically changed. My earlier-stated and iterated formula is now invalid. The formula for not being poor in America is neither understandable nor executable by an individual. The “American Dream” can no longer be sought, only “hoped” for.

Unemployment is 9.8% nationwide, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor as of October 2. That rate has doubled in 22 months, and the numbers have risen from 7.6 million to 15.1 million. I hate to report this, but that’s the good news.

That’s the “official” unemployment statistics, what’s known as “U3”. “U6” measures U3 plus those who became too discouraged to continue to hunt, plus those who took part-time or significantly-lower-skill positions, plus those only marginally-attached (temporary). That rate as of October 2 – again according the U.S. Department of Labor – is 17% n nationwide.

The U6 unemployment rate as of June 2009 (the latest I can find) for black teens is 56%, U.S.-born Hispanic teens is 47%, black young adults with a high school degree is 44%, black high school dropouts of all ages is 41%, U.S.-born Hispanic young adults with only a high school degree is 35%, all teens (16-17) is 32%, young adults with only a high school degree (18-29) is 30%, and all Americans 15.9%. In Michigan, California, and a few other states these percentages are much higher yet. According to even the N.Y. Times the U6 for Oregon reached 23.5%, 21.5% in Michigan and Rhode Island, and 20.3% in California in late Spring.

Technically, America is in a recession. And amid that recession the federal government passed and imposed an increase in the minimum wage, thus to exacerbate the above figures, minorities as always hardest hit. In reality, however, America is in a transformation, one imposed by the federal government with malice aforethought. The “recession” is manufactured via government fiscal and monetary policy, by the substitution of the rule of an oligarchy for the rule of law, by the intentional trashing of the U.S. Constitution and the dismissal of the Declaration of Independence, and by the successful takeover of America by liberal-fascist statists hell-bent on erasing liberty in favor of tyranny. The “recession”, then, isn’t a phase; it’s structural.

A gradual smaller American economy, a weaker America, a poorer America, a more-government-controlled America has been the new norm . . . for a century at least.  A geometric decline rather than arithmetic is the this-year-new norm.  Given this new reality, America’s run-of-the-mill, everyday, garden-variety, college –graduate homemaker is focused on what? Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, Entertainment Tonight, People, Sudoku, the crosswords, and youth sports. They are convinced that the 401k-now-201k will again become a 401k or 501k, despite the near-impossibility of said happening. So, what’s the new paradigm? How does a young person avoid becoming poor? What should she or he do?

Governor Bradford of the end-of-the-15th-and-beginning-of-the-16th-century Virginia Colony recognized a disaster in the making.  It was the commune, based on "to each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities."  The Colony had experienced a 25% annual death rate for its first two years, mostly from starvation.  He asserted leadership, and got commitment to individual liberty and property, each family owning its own plot and reaping its own harvest.  The result was surplus, and trade with both England and the natives (Indians).  Resulting was the first Thanksgiving, whereat both the Indians and the settlers celebrated the new prosperous reality.

From his pre-Adam-Smith aha-experience (eureka) discovery, we have finally returned full-circle.  And I think it important to note here that if the Constitution had been honored, defended and protected, and adhered to, this could not have happened.  Mohamed El-Erian, ceo of Pacific Investment, said on Bloomberg October 5th that today's unemployment picture -- with its depth, its breadth, its demographics, and its seeming hopelessness -- is and will be the "new norm".

Entrepreneurs and their small businesses know exactly what they want from government:  nothing.  Leave me alone.  Get outa da way.  Executives at what used to be small business, but are now large, know exactly what they want from government as well: either nothing or provide protectionist policy that mitigates stiff competition.  For great examples study either General Electric (GE) or Archer-Daniels Midland (ADM) . . . or both.  As many small and mid-size business have gone under, along with some large (but not deemed "too big to fail"), those jobs are now gone, never to return.  In recent decades at least, more than 70% of new jobs have been created by small business, and today's federal government is systemically discouraging anyone from taking on the incredible risk of entrepreneurship.  So, what’s the new paradigm? How does a young person avoid becoming poor? What should she or he do?

Last Thursday I had my annual physical exam and semi-annual check-up with my internist.  After some lab tests and the like, we sat down and he asked me if anything were "bothering" me, you know, like coughs or headaches or chest pains and the like.  And I said, "Yes".  I said that I wondered whether he'd still be my highly-valued doctor two years hence.  We agreed that he might not.  When the President or Speaker or Majority Leader talk of cutting "healthcare costs", what they're actually talking about is cutting medical-care prices.

When the federal government takes over the "system", its sole motivation will be to reduce its costs.  To do that, they will dictate that my doc cut his prices by, say, 20%.  His overhead is 65%; his costs are what they are.  His pre-tax  will, therefore, drop from 35% of gross to 15%.  Then, the following year the federal government will dictate that is original price be dropped 40% total or another 20%.  At that point, he'd be working an entire year in order to lose money . . . structurally.  What would he do, cut overhead or just get out?  He'd get out.  Hey, he could just accept a lower standard of living, become a homemaker and stay-at-home dad, and leave it to his wife to bring home the bacon.  Woops, she's also an internist.

Though we didn't discuss, it, my guess is that they'd move, leave the country.  So, what’s the new paradigm? How does a young person avoid becoming poor? What should she or he do?  Heck, how do you and I avoid becoming poor?

It's difficult to read through those U6 demographic statistics and not have the mind wander to contemplating what the impact might be on burglaries, robberies, gang activity, drug consumption, assaults; with increasing anger and anomie the impact on homicides and rapes, arsons.  It's difficult to hear the El-Erian assessment without wondering  just who it will be that pays the more-than-$900,000 per household in unfunded American obligations now in place.  But, those aren't the questions here.

And then there's this guy.

Why should there be "health insurance"?  There shouldn't.  Health is a matter of nature and nurture, of genetics and lifestyle.  Why would I start a company to insure health?  Insurance is the sharing of risk.  Where's the risk in health.  Either nurture doesn't matter because of nature, or nurture does matter and is manageable by the individual in question.

Americans' lifestyles are less-healthy than many others around the world in developed nations.  We exercise too little, are sedentary too much.  Too much meat, not enough fruits and vegetables.  Too much tobacco and alcohol and other drugs.  Too much murder, assault, rape, and gang violence.  All of these negatives, however, affect us based on personal choices and behaviors.  And behaviors have consequences.  Each of us is granted by our Creator, however, with the unalienable right to liberty, to choose for ourselves.  One consequence of that right is that each of us has an unalienable right to stupidity, and many exercise that right . . . regularly.  You can't fix stupid?

Among companies that provide -- as part of compensation -- some level of medical (not health) insurance, leaders have developed and encourage participation in "wellness" programs.  It has been demonstrated that healthy workers are more productive workers.  Also demonstrated has been that investment in wellness lowers company medical insurance costs more than cost of the wellness programs.

The contention, however, by proponents of a womb-to-tomb government-involved medical-care system that incentivising healthier diet and appropriate exercise will lower medical costs is bogus at best, disingenuous more likely.  What's smart for company executives is that their wellness programs postpone medical costs, say, until after retirement.  Then, those former employees become beneficiaries of Medicare and, in some cases, Medicaid or both.  It is irrefutable fact that sooner or later we all die.  The statistic that as much as 2/3 of our total lifetime outlay for medical care occurs in the last year of life still holds.  What those smart companies did was to reduce their costs while pushing them forward onto the government, and also likely increasing the drain on Social Security as those folks live retired longer.

Why is there no private-sector company offering flood insurance?  If you live near the shoreline of the Mississippi River, you'll definitely want flood insurance.  If I had a private insurance company, I'd see you as a bi-annual claim just waiting to happen and suck me dry.  If you live in downtown New Orleans, ditto.  If as a private-sector insurance guy I offered you flood insurance on your $100,000 riverfront homestead, I'd have to charge you about $60,000 per annum.   If you live atop a mountain, you won't want flood insurance, though as an insurance guy I'd need you to buy it to share the risk.  Why does FEMA offer "flood insurance"?  You have to ask?  It's the government, that's why.

Suppose you're a private-sector insurance gal, and you get a frantic phone call from someone wanting fire insurance on his house.  He wants it now and says he'll pay the first month's premium over the phone.  You say that someone will have to come out and inspect the place first, and you can schedule that for tomorrow.  He says he can't wait, because the house is in flames, and won't be there tomorrow.  He points out that he called you first, even before calling the fire department.  Would you make the deal?  You might, from a business perspective, see that as about as smart as offering ex post facto flood "insurance" to post-Katrina homeowners in the Big Easy, or life insurance to someone with terminal liver cancer.

In today's "healthcare debate" -- even as citizens with more than two gray cells to rub together know that what's being floated is either  the achievement of socialized medicine or another significant increment toward that end -- there is talk of  a role for private-sector insurance companies.  These entities are not now, nor have they been for decades, in a free and competitive marketplace.  Liberal-leftist fascism has emasculated them, regulating them such that they aren't really in the insurance business.  Analogous would be requiring the people living atop mountains to buy flood insurance, people in Iowa to buy hurricane insurance, the deaf to buy coverage for hearing aids, and the homeless to buy homeowners insurance.  A major focus in today's "debate" is whether "insurers" should be required to provide coverage for "pre-existing conditions" without surcharge.

This would be like requiring the fire-insurance gal to agree to insure the guy whose house is ablaze.  This would be like requiring the homeowners insurance rep to offer a flood insurance policy to someone whose house was already underwater.  So, when you get sick, you buy insurance . . . for awhile.  When you have stage-four lymphoma, you call Travelers or Blue Cross, and tell them that you'll pay for coverage at $100 per month for a couple of months, and send them the $300,000 tab for your care.

The auto insurance industry seems to be fairly sensible.  Risk is shared, but those deemed higher-risk pay higher premiums than those deemed lower-risk.  Urban higher versus rural lower.  High-crime area higher versus low-crime area lower.  Teenagers higher versus middle-age lower.  Couple of accidents and a couple of tickets higher versus no accidents or tickets lower.  Zoomzoom car higher versus 4-door sedan lower.  None of the insurance companies offers fuel or oil or lube or tire-rotation insurance.  None offers carwash or brake-job insurance.  Would be nonsensical.  Wouldn't be "insurance".  Indeed, both thinking rational auto owners and insurers see the wisdom in high-deductible -- say, $2,000 or more -- policies.  Why?  Everybody gets scratched and/or dinged.  Can't go to the mall without that.  It's the big crashes that are the budget busters, and with those there can be some financial risk sharing.

So, let's talk about insurance bennies.  How'd we get where so many Americans think that they shouldn't themselves have to pay for medical care; not procedures,  not prescriptions, not tests, not check-ups, not dental cleanings, not eye glasses, not condoms, not birth-control pills, not Viagra  (Wassup widdat?), and certainly not power chairs?  A century ago one of the top-five killers was diarrhia.  (Some will see that assertion as a blowback to my most-recent previous thread.)   Now, lots and lots of Americans think that no-cost-to-them MRIs, cat scans, joint replacements, micro-surgeries, "miracle" drugs and the like are rights.

In the current "debate", those on the left and, indeed, some of those not thought of as on the left eschew the idea of high-deductible plans, of people paying for everyday, routine, predicable basics themselves.  The first nickel is to be "covered".  Doctor visits for check-ups, annual eye exams and the resulting eyeglasses, dental cleanings, mammograms, STD screenings, abortions; everything.  For them from the get-go, risk and actual insurance are off-the-table.  Free markets and free choice are off-the-table.  Personal responsibility and unalienable rights -- all of them -- are off-the-table.

There is rationing in everything.  Only so many hours in the day.  So much to do; so little time.  So many wants; limited cash.  Shall I buy steak?  Can I afford it?  At issue here are (1) who will ration -- the individual (exercising liberty) or the government (exercising tyranny) -- and (2) supply and demand, with price the arbiter in a free market, or severely-limited supply from the government and infinite demand from consumers, with government bureaucrats the arbiter, based solely on government cost-containment.

Why did employers get involved?  Because of the government.  Did the government require it?  No.  The government -- early on in WW II -- tried to rewrite the laws of supply and demand.  The guv didn't want wages escalating and taking money away from the war effort (Remember, they were Keynesians), so they capped them.  Employers now couldn't compete for a scarce resource -- employees, given that so many men had become GIs -- by offering more pay, so they used their ingenuity and offered non-wage bennies, like medical insurance.  Why didn't the government crack down on those pesky-miscreant employers?  For FDR and his fellow liberal-leftist fascists having individuals dependent -- even if to employers rather than the government -- was an incremental step in the desired direction.  It was a small step toward where our latter-day liberal-leftist fascists are today as we speak.



Everything with which the federal government is involved is a mess.  Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals, clinics, and treatment are a tragedy for our wounded warriors and their families, and a blight on American culture.  Medicare is unconstitutional, bloated, corrupt, bureaucratic, and soon-to-be bankrupt.  Medicaid is unconstitutional, corrupt, and grossly-inefficient.  SCHIP is everything wrong with Medicaid, and on steroids.

Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP all serve to discourage and disincentivise personal responsibility among those who could and should take care of themselves.  They also discourage and disincentivise acts and organizations of charity for those incapable of taking care of themselves.

For Americans who would seek out and avail themselves of true medical insurance for the very same reason that they seek out and avail themselves of homeowners, auto, flood, hurricane and fire insurance  -- i.e., to mitigate the financial devastation of "the big one" -- state governments nationwide have unconstitutionally (14th amendment) regulated and manipulated insurers such that there isn't a marketplace where they and those wishing coverage can freely negotiate.

International intellectual-property law is inadequate and enforcement is selective.  The result is that patents and copyrights infringement is near-ubiquitous.  A pharmaceutical company can invest a $billion on a project that fails, then another $billion one one that succeeds.  On the second one, a company in, say, Asia steals the formula and produces the drug itself, already a $billion ahead of the game.  Then, the socialized medical system in Canada will negotiate for a bulk buy from the U.S. firm at a price a mere fraction of what Americans pay.  That is accomplished both because of the threat of ignoring a patent and by the pharma company violating U.S. laws against "predatory pricing in restraint of trade."

It's a menace, say "environmental" groups, characterizing today's American toilet paper.  Soft, plush, multi-ply -- think tush-friendly -- rolls of the disposable staple, even for urban outdoorsmen, are killing mother earth. Apparently, we're literally wiping out our pristine forests. These always-mad-and-unhappy champions of anything anti-capitalist -- Bless their little hearts . . . a pantload -- are lobbying (aka "whining") for mandating that all toilet paper be made from recycled paper products.  Greenpeace, always somewhat cheeky,  has had a 4 1/2-year campaign against Kimberly-Clark, the makers of Kleenex and Cottonelle.

According to the forest products industry, 5% of forest production goes to toilet paper and tissues, 26% to cardboard containers and packaging (with about half from recycled), and 3% to newspapers.  Large old-growth trees yield long fibers while small young trees and recycled paper yield short fibers.  Long fibers equal soft while young and recycled equal rough.  With reverence strictly reserved for things non-human, the "environmentalist" tree huggers opine that for mature, old-growth, majestic redwoods and other trees,  this is a cruel and  ignoble and unworthy end.  A stain on our culture, as it were.

Producers say that they want to cooperate with the environmentalists (aka "anti-capitalist quivering lip biters"), but consumers keep demanding "soft".  Seems to be a matter of taste?  And it's one thing to face off with Greenpeace or even Algore, but one doesn't want a pom-pommed cheerleader or debutante to get her thong all in a wad.   It's called "butt floss".  Take a crack at that!

When I queried frequent-commenter to gumballs, JT, he said that "recycled resulted in a smear campaign."  I countered that the gubmint was test-floating the idea of bailing out newspapers.  Since fewer and fewer people are reading those rags, maybe they could go straight from the press to slicers, there to be made into 4"-wide strips.  All of downtown D.C. could transition from rolls to stacks.  With what's been coming outa there recently, there are thousands of legislators, staffers, lobbyists, press corps and czars who've been spending lots and lots of potentially-productive time sitting above porcelain. 

Who knows, maybe the N.Y. Times and Washington Post will make more sense read "backward".  Heck, if we formatted bills in columns and sent them also to the slicer, maybe Congressman Conyers could take some quiet time to read them a couple of slices at a sitting.

Maybe, if we made it less comfortable, these "leaders" would tighten the sphincter and dump less.  Indeed, we don't need another march on Washington.  What we need is a million-septic-truck roll on the Capitol so we can spread -- redistribute? --the wealth.  I'm just flush with anticipation.

Of course, when the loaded trucks re-cross the beltway, we'll now have the ecological problem of having to change our poop-to-pulp balance.  What do you want as legacy, pristine forests or poopy deserts?  Maybe, we can get NASA to take the D.C discharge and launch it  -- using biofuel --to another planet.  I'd ask for planet nominations . . . but that would be way way way too easy.

I went to a Knoxville (Tennessee) Tea Party April 15, 2009.  It was well-organized (by local citizens), well-conducted, well-attended by thousands.  I spent the first half talking to a twenty-something guy, who said that he was a student at the University of Tennessee.  He asked if I knew who paid for it all.  I asked if he did.  He said that it was Roger Ailes of Fox News who put up big bucks to get people to come.  I knew that he had been duped.

I spent the third-quarter of that rally asking myself why I was there.  I don't protest.  I don't picket.  I don't chant slogans that rhyme as part of a gaggle.  I don't beg for stuff.  I don't want the government to do anything, certainly not for me.  For years I've watched choreographed rallies, populated by people who picket, whine, chant, and carry professionally-printed-and-distributed-by-organizers signs.  These are always in the afternoon and during the week, since the participants don't have to get up in the morning and don't have jobs and it fits the drive-by news cycle.  These are people who vote for a living.  Before the fourth quarter, I left.  And I want to now apologize to the organizers from my now-hometown and all who were there for abandoning them.

I've written in previous essays hereon that I think it's too late, that America is toast, that what's coming for America is a replay of 20th-century Argentina.  And I've laid out the analyses and case for my conclusion.  Nonetheless, for six months post that conclusion, I started GetAmericaRight and tried to make it work as an organization to turn the Republican Party into a true-conservative force in time for the 2010 elections.  I failed at that, I infer, for lack of talent.  We got almost no traction.

It's now ten months post that conclusion.  I was invited a few weeks back by the first woman chairman of the Blount County Republican Party, Susan Mills, to join with others here in the Knoxville area to go to Washington D.C. to the 912 Rally.  Though I've never been a member of any political party, I've known and respected Mrs. Mills for years.  I not only accepted, but invited some others, who also accepted.  Some 90-ish of us travelled on two busses, stayed in Chantilly, Virginia next to Dulles International Airport Friday and Saturday nights, and took the Metro into D.C. Saturday morning.

Fellow Knoxville FairTax activist and supporter, Randy Ceccucci, called me at 8 a.m. to ask if I were at Freedom Plaza, the gathering and starting point.  He said that the Plaza was already packed, that despite that the march to the Capitol wasn't scheduled until 11:30.  I explained that I was still in Chantilly and that it'd be awhile.  The Metro was not only operating a regular weekend schedule, but was performing track maintenance.  Either they didn't know what was coming or didn't care.  To understand the scene, picture the trains in Tokyo where there are police on the platform pushing and pushing people into the doorways like sardines so as to max occupancy.  From the Vienna station we passed some thirteen stops, platforms jammed with rallyers, but with no-nil-nada-zip-zilch nanometers of space aboard.  We finally arrived at Freedom Triangle station at about 10 a.m.

When we exited and passed the Reagan Building to Pennsylvania Avenue, the march had already begun.  We joined the procession.  Capitol Police had ordered the march to start because Federal Plaza, the surrounding streets, and west toward the White House were already jammed, and the Metro just kept spewing more by the tens of thousands every 14 minutes.  The Nation's Capitol clearly was not prepared for what happened to them -- on many levels -- Saturday September 12, 2009.

I saw signs -- large, small, huge, colorful, brilliant, funny, insightful, inciteful; but none profane, over-the-top -- held both by marchers and folks standing to the sides.  Then I focused on the people.  Old and young, individuals and families.  Costumed and practical-for-walking, though lots of red, white and blue.  A tapestry of race and ethnicity.  Polite, yet enthusiastic.  Considerate of their fellows.  These were, as I, not people who vote for a living.  They were people who work for a living, for a life, for a family, to make their communities and nation better.  Before reaching the Capitol I knew why I was there.


Addendum: September 15:  A rally of leftists and gimmes also has a "tapestry of race and ethnicity" and sex orientation and gender, etc.  There each group (aka "community") has different signs, different chants, different agendae.  Each wants government to grant them more rights . . . and goodies.  At the 912 Rally there were no groups, no communities, just patriots.  Last Saturday there were a couple million American patriots on the same page.

What was it all about?  The rally's purpose came in a couple million shades, one per participant.  The theme -- mine, the speakers, the signs, the shouts, the conversations -- however, was liberty versus tyranny, freedom and personal responsibility versus statism; about a huge and growing federal government versus a very-limited government with only enumerated powers.  The rally was all about the lost Constitution and our need to restore it.  It was about the currently-ubiquitous word "trillion".  Federal debt, this year's staggering deficits, future debt already committed of some $63,000,000,000,000 (That's trillion), along with a current agenda hell-bent on "remaking" America; they're all part of the mix as well.

Why now?  Slope.  America has been moving inexorably left for 220 years.  It was nickel and dime for the first 120, but then the speed picked up.  There was Teddy Roosevelt, followed by Woodrow Wilson, maybe our first liberal-fascist.  The speed leftward slowed after him, but then came FDR.  Wilson and FDR both knew that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and they created crises, then used them to move the country as fast as possible toward statism at the expense of liberty.  JFK ran out of time, but LBJ put the pedal to the metal and the march toward statism on steroids.  Nixon only tapped the brakes a tad while Ford couldn't find either the accelerator or the brakes.  Carter was a dingbat (Think Edith Bunker), but still moved us leftward.  Reagan faced Democrat majorities in congress, so the train kept rolling west.  Clinton was only successful around the edges.  The Bushes (41 and 43) together probably moved us farther left than Clinton could, but he (Clinton) spent a lotta time otherwise focused and occupied.

All of the above history was "frog in the pot of gradually-heating water".  Beginning November 2008 Americans felt the heat.  They experienced sorta-warm to simmering to boiling . . . quickly.  TARP, bailouts, government takeovers, a trillion here and a couple trillion there.  Liberal-fascist statists had been succeeding incrementally, yet inexorably, much to the delight of liberal-fascist statists, of gimmes (those who vote for a living), and of career bureaucrats.  Meanwhile, conservatives -- those who love liberty -- were busy working for a living and adjusting to the latest and greatest government intrusion and restriction and taxation.  For way-too-many, only this year did they receive their wake-up call.  I remind that I think it's too late.

What's next?  I believe that the USA is toast.    I think that way too many Americans are both ignorant of the Constitution and fail to understand American exceptionalism.  Those who are neither ignorant nor lack such understanding are busy working and supporting everyone else day in and day out.  Those who vote and whine for a living, along with those who govern and wallow in power for a living will prevail 'cause that's their game.  If in mid-October, when congress seeks to pass "healthcare reform", six million Americans rally at the nation's Capitol to intimidate their elected officials, I'll reconsider . . . gladly.

Thanks to Glenn Beck, Van Jones is no longer one of President Obama's czars.  Below are identified those remaining.  As you'd fully expect, I have absolutely no agenda in laying this before you.  We at gumballs provide; you decide.  I suppose if one did have an agenda, one might wonder who should go next.

Senior Advisor to the President:  Valerie Jarrett    from Wiki     NY Times     earlier NY Times     video     long video on economic agenda   Malkin


Maybe, the answer -- just maybe, I'm thinking -- might be "all of the above" and -- especially and --  the guy who hired them:  President Barack Hussein Obama, the perp-in-chief.  Before it's too late?  I think it already is.

For those who happen here, not having read any of my last half-dozen or so posts/essays/columns, what follows may lack sufficient context to digest.   That said, I remain unpresupposing enough, that I won't actually recommend your going to, and investing the time and energy, to read those prerequisite materials.  For those of you kind enough to have been following my regular demonstration that I'm at least an order of fries short of a Happy Meal, (a) thank you and (b) grip this and rip this.

I, drpete, have volunteered to serve as Benevolent Dictator of the United States of America for a very-limited time.  I'm 67 1/2 now and would like to no longer be BD by the time I hit 70.  Here's what I'd do.

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, then pass HR-25 and S-296 the FairTax.  It will then again be that the people are represented in the House of Representatives and the states in the Senate.  The FairTax will replace all federal taxes on businesses, income taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and payroll taxes; that with a 23% (inclusive) sales tax on all new goods and on services to retail consumers.

Seal and secure the borders, using fence, lazers, unmanned drones.  Anything within, say, 10 feet of the foreign side of the border will be zapped into oblivion.  High-tech-protect ports of entry.  Change U.S. law such that children born of illegals do not become citizens and make the law retroactive to January 1, 2000.

Pass the Randy Barnett-proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Sunset Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and Social Security.  Sunset all pensions and other benefits for federal elected officials, effective the day they leave office.

Release restrictions on (a) drilling for oil and natural gas in ANWAR and  Prudhoe Bay in Alaska; the Gulf of Mexico offshore from Florida, Alabama and Mississippi; the Atlantic off the Carolinas and Virginia; in the Pacific off California, Oregon and Washington; as well as (b) eliminating most regulations on the construction and operation of oil refineries in the United States; and (c) eliminating most regulations on the construction and operation of nuclear power facilities.

Use the bully-pulpit of the BD to create an understanding that the United States of America has an enemy -- at least one -- hell-bent on its destruction, Islamofascists.  The enemy is not a nation, not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, and not protected by the Geneva Convention.  The terrorist threat they pose is real, dangerous, cannot be eliminated, just reduced.  Our investment in that reduction shall be measured in ROI and trade-offs as should any and all investments.

Eliminate the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health & Human Services, Homeland Security (including FEMA), Housing & Urban Development, and Labor, along with almost all agencies know by an acronym.  Remaining will only be that explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and do with their functions whatever Dr. Walter Williams recommends.

Repeal the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage, and Davis-Bacon Act.  The unalienable right to liberty trumps all three.  There may be no collective bargaining.  Busnesses mayn't and neither may labor.

Make "earmarks" illegal and nullify prior earmarks as can be.

Repeal the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.

Put in place severe penalties against employing or housing illegals, then aggressively enforce.  As found, illegals are to be deported to the border from whence they entered.  Establish a "guest-worker" program with private-sector agencies working with prospective employers in the U.S. and sources abroad.  Guest workers will be time-limited, e-carded, placed, and paid only through those agencies.

Eliminate all forms of international welfare.  Resign from the United Nations and deport it.  Resign from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  The Agency for International Development (part of the State Department) will be eliminated.  Resign from NATO.  Treaties will henceforth be on ad hoc and quid pro quo bases.

Eliminate all forms of domestic welfare.  All medical, poverty, tariffs, price supports or controls, affirmative action, quotas, set-asides.  Eliminate PBS and NPR.  Eliminate federal grants to "faith-based" and "community-based" organizations.

Identify 50% of the land area now owned by the federal government and place it for sale.  Also eliminate 80+% of regulations on allowable use of private land imposed, e.g., by the EPA.  This is to be handled as recommended by Dr. Thomas Sowell.

Rescind Executive Order 13166 by President William Jefferson Clinton.  Make English the official language of the United States and its government.  Encourage the 20 states, not already having done so, to make English their official language as well.

When the above has been accomplished; and when the financial indebtedness of the United States has been reduced from some $63,000,000,000,000 (That's trillion) to less than $6, 300,000,000,000 (That's still trillion) or by 90% and the annual deficit is negative, i.e., surplus; and when the FairTax rate has been reduced from 23% (inclusive) to 5%; then, this BD will go cruising, golfing (still badly), and never again to be heard.

I'm revisiting a question I asked hereon vis-a-vis Barack Obama during the campaign, i.e., Who put that turtle atop that fencepost?  It's not that the President isn't bright, isn't literate.  Certainly, he's not undereducated.  And he is eloquent.  It's not that the themes of this administration are inconsistent with the themes he's had for a long time.  President Obama just seems to be lacking in the savvy and moxey, along with the analytical competence, to create the puzzle with which we are presented. 

He can put the puzzle together for us . . . but, only with the teleprompter at his sides.  His public persona has been ubiquitous, and we've seen him in campaign mode for more than two years now, but despite all of that, I cannot picture his chairing a meeting with a six-pack of expert advisors, then raising his hand and putting forth his palm to indicate that he's heard enough and has made his decision.

The crises fell into place as if choreographed.  Chuck Schumer brought down one bank with his loose lips as if on cue . . .  in the critical pre-election days.   The legislation roll-out, both deep and wide, frenetic of pace, both sweeping and lengthier than Atlas Shrugged and War and Peace.  We're coming to know who hasn't read the 1,000-plus-page bills, but who knows who wrote them?

The shortage of cabinet-type nominees who must be confirmed by the Senate; that along side the plethora of czar appointments, all of whom report directly to the prexy, none of whom require Senate approval . . . or any scrutiny or public exposure.  The vacation to Martha's Vineyard, announced only at the very-last minute, when the prexy was on a roll with daily gaffes, almost ala Veep Biden.  The Kennedy permanent-dirt-nap inaugural, timed perfectly to fill the news-cycle gap while the prexy was officially out-of-pocket.

I think it arguable that this Turtle-in-Chief was selected by an oligarchy as many as 5-to-6 years ago, that the chosen one (TIC) was then put through finishing school for grooming.  It may have been relatively late in the game that the TOTUS (teleprompter-in-chief) was added to the team.

Remember the Wellstone Memorial?  He was lionized by one liberal-leftist flack after another, who then went on the rail against then President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney.  Cheney was there as and in courtesy and representing the White House.  He was driven from the hall.  Class act, those liberal-leftist-statists  The line, not from the Memorial, that I most remember is that Senator Paul Wellsone "was one of the most-generous persons I've ever met . . . with other people's money."

Will we get the same with a Kennedy Memorial?  This "Lion of the Senate", I remember for having walked away and left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown at Chapaquiddick, for inventing the verb "Bork", for impugning then President Ronald Reagan personally and with malice aforethought, for "borking" Clarence Thomas and every other Republican-President Supreme nominee for the last 48 years.  I also remember Ted Kennedy for his chutzpah in being even more generous than Paul Wellstone . . . as with liberal-leftist-statists in general . . . with other people's money.  In addition, the youngest of the Kennedy brothers is absolutely legendary -- save for in the leftist news media, aka "mainstream" -- for his outlandish transgressions of decency and the law, and against women.  Lots of hush money has been used to "spread the wealth".

George W. Bush regularly gave more than 10% of his gross income to charity.  Cheney, while veep, gave 77%.  Leftists excoriated Cheney for just trying to get a tax deduction.  Liberal-leftist-socialist-statist icon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a hero to Democrats, gave 3%.  Jesse Jackson -- bilker-in-chief -- who claimed to live a life of compassion gave less than 1%.  Robert Reich, champion of a "living wage", was so compassionate that his charitable contributions have averaged 0.2%.  As Junior Massachusetts Senator, John Kerry gave all of $175 in 1993, then tapered to $zero in 2005.  Hopefully, his new status as Senior Senator will perk that up.  Of course, on the way to running for POTUS in 1998, then veep Al Gore forked out a spread-the-wealth $353.  President Obama, who made $1.7 million just before moving into the Oval Office, stepped up with 1%.  Getting back to the subject at hand, the late Senator Kennedy got a bigger tax deduction for his sailboat (entertaining) than for his charity, usually a bit less than 1%.

All of the above can be categorized as "anecdotal" evidence if one wishes to generalize to liberal-leftist-statists in general, but that's not to whom I was generalizing.  I was talking about the population liberal-leftist-socialist-statists-high-profile "leaders".  As to the liberal-leftist-statists in general,just because someone will still accuse me of cooking the numbers, heads of conservative households contribute 30% more than liberal ones.

My next-door neighbor has his flag at half-staff.  I have never seen one moment or one example wherein I thought Ted Kennedy had one iota of redeeming social value.  As worthless as armpit hair.  With a forty-eight-year career in the U.S. Senate, it's hard for me to think of a human being alive who's had a more-devastating effect on America. 

I'll have to mute the radio every 30 minutes for the news breaks, avoid the newspapers, and any tv news coverage (including FNC) until this fawning "Camelot Sunset" show is over.  Otherwise, I'll just puke.  I'll leave all the "news"-media hoopla to the nation's dumb masses (Read that aloud quickly three times), that in honor of the TH censoring system which will not allow me to properly use former Vice President Cheney's first name, as he liked to be called and known.  This "news" "story" should be shovel-ready.

While playing golf -- badly, as always -- today, though surely I shoulda been mourning, my sister-in-law, Bonnie had my line of the day.  We saw while lunching at the turn Fox News with a scroller saying that Kennedy would be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

That seems to me a slap and an insult to all of our soldiers buried there.  And I so quipped.  Bonnie said that he should be buried at sea . . .  no casket, just tossed off a bridge.  Gets my vote.

Glenn Fowers commented on my last column and recommended my reading the transcript of a speech from 2004 at Hillsdale College.  Glenn found this at fellow-Townhall-blogger Jim Cathcart's site.  It's not short, but immensely informative and inciteful.  I recommend it to all of you.  With what we are facing as a nation, it's a must-read.  It describes New Zealand's rebound from the brink we now have.

Though Cathcart's piece doesn't, if I properly recall, say so, I'm guessing that the source of the transcript is  Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.  You can subscribe at no cost.  Excellent stuff.

Over the course of my last two columns I posited that the United States has so overspent and is so indebted that it is beyond salvation.  Even, I showed, if we sold all of the national parks and even all of our nuclear weapons, we wouldn't make a dent in the nation's debt.  Given our "entitlement" programs -- all of which continue and grow in perpetuity -- I stated that debt at $63,000,000,000,000 (That's trillion).  For a real-time-up-to-the-nanosecond  perusal of the nation's financial picture, visit here.

I closed my last column with the following question:  "Is there any case to be made at all for weaning Americans off of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIP, the unearned income tax credit, government schools, the religion of environmentalism; of individual, overseas and corporate welfare; of "nation-building" and "promoting democracy" around the globe?"

In responding to a comment from the always-insightful Gray Ghost, I said, "In my almost-always-humble opinion, the USA has no options, just a single course, and one we will NOT take. It involves the federal government SHRINKING in mission and budget by 30% in 2009-10, and by 80% by 2015."

BrianR noted in a comment on my last column that average life expectancy for democracies is about 200 years, and I responded that the USA, then, has gotten a bonus 20 years.  Unsaid in our exchange was that these democracies are usually followed by dictatorships.

The United States, however, was founded not as a democracy, but as a republic; a republic based on the rule of law, not either the rule or whim of men.  The U.S. Constitution was the supreme law of the land.  That Constitution has been abused and trash-canned by almost every POTUS and a majority of congressmen and senators for the past two centuries, with an all-out assault since the 1920s.  America can be saved by, and only by, restoring the lost Constitution . . . now.   For an absolute hoot -- and affirmation of my point -- watch this!

A problem I've perceived with "Dr. No", Texas U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, is that he argues that we should follow the Constitution, but doesn't suggest how we undo the some eighty percent of what's already on the books and being done which is unconstitutional.  It does little -- not nothing, but little -- as I see it, to vote against, say, increasing funding for the Department of Education or for Social Security or Medicare or the Department of Housing and Urban Development or for the execution of our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan; all of that when what's needed is to fund the elimination of all of the above . . . and much more.

Saving America will require, I contend, restoring the lost Constitution (phrase lifted from the title of a great book by Professor Randy Barnett) and in short order.  After a century of disregard -- indeed of elected officials taking oaths of office with crossed fingers and while having Pinocchio moments -- I question, no I doubt, no I don't believe that the same ilk under the same system can, or wishes to, accomplish the task.

Saving America, I believe, will require a benevolent dictator, leader of an oligarchy of patriots, who will quickly sunset the 80% to restore the lost Constitution, repeal its 16th and 17th amendments, repeal lots of laws, eliminate wholesale most federal departments and almost anything known by an acronym; then supervise elections, assuring that those voting are both alive and eligible; then step down and head for the sunset or the barn.

Just as one example of what I mean by "sunset", were I the benevolent dictator, I'd dictate ('cause that's what dictators do) that for those age 60 and above, Social Security benefits would remain as currently in place for the duration of their lives.  For those age 50 through 59 Social Security benefits would remain as above, less 5% for each year or part thereof, that they are less than 60.  For those under 50, there would be no Social Security.

A final note:  One shouldn't propose something this radical unless willing to step up to the plate.  Though I'd rather enjoy our home here on the Tennessee River and our boat, interspersed with golfing badly, I hereby volunteer to git'r dunn.  As alternative, we can continue to just print money and have a side-order of hashbrowns at Waffle House cost $20,000,000 (That's million) and a couple-mil extra if you wannem scattered or lathered or slathered or whatever.

In my last column, among much else, I posed the following question, asking what would be your strategy going forward?

If your household is average, typical, garden variety, everyday, run-of-the-mill, and thus grosses, I'm guessing, say, $70,000 per year and nets after current taxes -- federal, state, local, on income, sales, property -- say, $50,000, what would your strategy going forward be if you had ($572,000 [because of government fiscal irresponsibility] +$115,000 [because of your own inability to control your shopping addiction]) $687,000 in debt and current assets of, say, $80,000, thus net worth of negative $607,000?  That's where we are today, this day, and there's no bailout 'cause the bailer of record is already in your knickers and Zimbabwe says that it has its own problems.

I intentionally misstated the dilemma you'd face, by using flawed accounting.  There's good news and bad, but please either review the previous column so that you have the context either here (to click back and forward between this and the prior column) or or here (if you'd rather be able to scroll up and down the same page for both columns).

The personal financial dilemma I painted was a metaphor for where the country is, and I assigned to you your share of the government's $63,000,000,000,000 (That's trillion) indebtedness as one of about 120,000,000 (That's million) households.  That came out to $572,000.  Now for the flawed accounting, the intentional misstatement.  What I didn't assign to you was your share (120 millionth) of the government's assets.

From an accounting standpoint, this situation wouldn't show up on an "income" or "earnings" statement, but rather a "statement of financial position" or "balance sheet".  Indeed, we through our government could sell assets to pay down those $63,000,000,000,000, and bring us back to financial solvency.  The metaphor presented in the last column and restated above was to show you that we're toast.  There's would be no hope.  It's just not feasible, not possible, to dig out of that hole.

The federal government owns land, lots of it; indeed, more than half of all the land in the USA.  There are just under 400 national parks.  There are some 79,000 "historic places".  The Great Smoky Mountain National Park is the most-visited and is in my backyard.  Beautiful!  I visited the Grand Canyon last spring.  Beautiful!  We could hold a global "absolute auction"  Smoky Mountain is almost 521,000 acres while the Grand Canyon Park is about 1.2 million acres.  Let's say that auction gets $1,000 per acre.  Right there in one sitting we'd haul in about 1.75 billion bucks.  If we just had another 360,000 equivalent places rather than under 400, we'd have the job done.

I've never been to the Alaska Natural Wildlife Refuge, that place of about 19,000,000 (That's million) acres and home to the porcupine caribou.  Most of us know it as "ANWAR".  A buyer might choose to buy just the 1,500,000 acres, known as "area 1002" wherein lies somewhere around 15,000,000,000 (That's billion) barrels of oil.  At auction might we get, say, $300,000,000,000 (That's billion)?  Geeez!  Selling "area 1002" of ANWAR alone could get us maybe 1/2 of 1% of the way back to solvency.  PETA likely wouldn't hold sway with the new owners, so the porcupine caribou would have to be dancin the aztec two-step to have much hope of continuing the specie.

So, I have the Great Smoky Mountain National Park in my backyard.  In my "front" yard, then, I have Oak Ridge and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  Here, we know it as "ORNL".  When the Soviet Union imploded, that was good news.  When we realized that Soviet nukes were outa control, that was bad news.  Right now USA nukes are in control and by and at ORNL, the most secured and secure site in America.  So, if by selling all of our national parks and our retrievable crude oil, we only solve, say, 1% of our debt problem, now what?  Let's call it a debt "crisis" and not let it go to waste.  How 'bout we auction our nukes?  Let's say we have 5,000 of them and at auction they go on average for $100,000,000 (That's million) per. Even with volume discounts for big buyers, we could raise about $500,000,000,000 (That's billion).

Okay, to sum up so far, if we sold all of the federal lands, not just those two parks, maybe we'd haul in half a tril.  ANWAR itself get us a third of a tril.  The whole nuke stockpile adds another half a tril.  So, we're already at better than 2% outa hock. 

I've gotta cut this short and bring this column to a close, 'cause I have towels to fold, a bit of yardwork to complete, a few honey-do's, and I've schedule golf for tomorrow, so lemme leave it to y'all to come up with some more money-raising schemes.  Okay, sorry, just a little bit more.

I and other conservatives for years argued that you cut the deficit by cutting spending, and you reduce the debt by growing the economy.  Between 2001 and 2008 the federal budget grew by 60% or 6.9% per year.  With the growth of GDP during that same period, the budget would have been balanced (i.e., no deficit) if annual spending growth had been held to 4.4% versus the 6.9%.  Right now GDP has been shrinking slightly and may soon be merely flat.  Both economic and fiscal policies of the congress and the radical-liberal-fascist-statist oligarchy are, and will continue for the foreseeable future to be, to devastate the American economy . . . by design.  The largest federal budget deficit ever recorded was 6%.  For 2009, the CBO thinks that it will top 10%.  Over the next half-century, deficits in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security alone will likely exceed $50,000,000,000,000 (That's trillion).  Meanwhile, as wasteful as it undoubtedly is, the defense budget has shrunk to just 4% of GDP.

Is there any case to be made at all for weaning Americans off of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIP, the unearned income tax credit, government schools, the religion of environmentalism; of individual, overseas and corporate welfare; of "nation-building" and "promoting democracy" around the globe?

Not that it matters in this big picture, but yesterday Kathleen Sebelius, Health & Human Services Secretary, said that the "public option" was not an essential element of the President's healthcare program.  They would consider "co-ops" as a compromise, that to provide "competition" for those evil, nasty private insurance companies.  Republicans are stumbling over each other to jump aboard the bi-partisanship bandwagon.

What should we take from the Sebelius message?  The White House has determined that HR 3200 or anything like it is a lost cause right now, and the best "foot-in-the-door" move on the road toward the goal of single-payer is the play-the-stupid-Republicans "compromise".  Right now, conservatives should be taking the Sebelius stated rationale and turning it on her.  The way to get competition for those insurance companies is to undue the myriad rules and regulations in place by government which prevents competition.  Now that there is no bill written which reflects what the liberal-fascist-statist oligarchy is actually proposing, it will muffle the townhall meetings substantially.

Democrat Congressman Gene Green of Texas' 29th district in Houston is 61 years of age.  He spent 26 years in government schools -- pre-k through law -- and 37 1/2 split among the Texas state house and senate and the U.S. Congress.  Taxpayers have, thus, been paying much of his way virtually his entire tenure on the planet.  He is, if not the, certainly one of the most-generous persons in Houston . . . with other peoples' money.  He's been outspoken for years in opposition to any requirement that voters be required to show picture identification to demonstrate eligibility to participate in elections, saying that it would be undue burden.

Congressman Green has also been spectator recently to happenings at colleagues' townhall meetings.  Yesterday Green announced that at his upcoming events those wishing admission would be required to show picture i.d., proving that they were residents of the 29th district, to gain entry.

Comment:  No.  I report; you decide.

Democrat Missouri (the "Show Me" state) Senator Claire McCaskill had a townhall meeting yesterday.  Therein, she chastised questioners, saying that what they claimed was in the "healthcare reform" bill wasn't.  When they cited and read from the text, she said that she was speaking not of the House bill, but of the Senate bill.  Problem:  There is no Senate bill.  Then McCaskill asked for a show of hands from those on Medicare.  Then for another show of those who wanted to drop out of Medicare.  There were no takers.  Problem:  There is no alternative in the marketplace to Medicare . . . unless you retired from Congress.  Problem:  The Senator made no mention of the fact that Medicare will be bankrupt by 2015. 

Comment:  McCaskill lies, yes, but not as blatantly or frequently as TOTUS.

USA Today recently reported that this year (as of the end of May) taxpayers are on the hook for an additional $55,000 per household in government debt.  Continuing apace through mid-August, add another $25,000 for a year-to-date $80,000.  That makes the U.S. government in the hole for $63,900,000,000,000 (Yes, that's trillion) or about $572,000 per household.  Just for some context here -- bigger or smaller than a breadbox -- United States GDP (gross domestic product) is holding at about $14,000,000,000,000 (Yes, that's trillion) per annum or $115,000 per household.  During the next decade -- the one that begins in a tad over four months -- the federal government will cease to be able to pay Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans' pensions, and everything else.  The U.S. Government and, therefore, the United States of America will be broke, bankrupt, absent cash and absent credit.

Comment:  The rant shoulda been, "Bush spent and people lent."
Comment:  Why is Bernie Madoff in prison?  Heck, given the "healthcare reform" bill, why is Charles Manson in prison?

The American people have not been savers and investors, spending more each year than they make.  Personal debt at the end of the first quarter of 2009 was about $13,100,000,000,000 (Yes, that's trillion) or $117,000 per household.  When I graduated from high school 50 years ago with a 2.1 gpa and in the bottom half of the class, but with SAT scores placing me in the top 1/2 of 1% in the country, a college admissions counselor looked at me and queried, "So, you must have had a really fun time in high school?"

Comment:  C'mon, it was a helluva fun ride, no?

Well, I gotta idea.  We just gotta raise taxes and tighten our belts.  Half of Americans pay less than 4% of income taxes and a third pay less than zero.  Shall we go after them?  Oh, that's right, they're "poor".  The Laffer Curve shows indisputably what happens when government increases tax rates on the "evil rich" . . . and it's neither pretty nor does it help.

Comment:  Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks.  He replied, "That's where the money is."  Please review the above numbers just for a moment.  Who would Willie rob now?

More numbers.  Sorry.  Facts don't lie.  "U6" (those we read about usually [U3] plus those working part-time because they cannot find full-time, those who've given up looking because it's "hopeless") unemployment statistics for June 1, 2009 show: that the unemployment rate for black teens is 56%, U.S.-born Hispanic teens is 47%, black young adults with a high school degree is 44%, black high school dropouts of all ages is 41%, U.S.-born Hispanic young adults with only a high school degree is 35%, all teens (16-17) is 32%, young adults with only a high school degree (18-29) is 30%, and all Americans 15.9%.  In Michigan, California, and a few other states these percentages are much higher yet.

Comment:  Was increasing the "minimum wage" a bunch amid this supposed to help?  Worst hurt are young black males.
Comment:  "Cash for Clunkers" takes low-price used cars -- excuse me that's "pre-owned" -- out of the marketplace by destroying them; that to increase America's vehicle fuel efficiency, thereby throwing a bone to the environmental whackos, and to support the UAW as payback for all the help during the 2008 election cycle.  Who was hurt by CfC?  Peruse any of those folks above-listed in the U6 list, whether employed or not.  I remember my first car . . . and my second.  Back then, it was clunker or walk.

If your household is average, typical, garden variety, everyday, run-of-the-mill, and thus grosses, I'm guessing, say, $70,000 per year and nets after current taxes -- federal, state, local, on income, sales, property -- say, $50,000, what would your strategy going forward be if you had ($572,000 [because of government fiscal irresponsibility] +$115,000 [because of your own inability to control your shopping addiction]) $687,000 in debt and current assets of, say, $80,000, thus net worth of negative $607,000?  That's where we are today, this day, and there's no bailout 'cause the bailer of record is already in your knickers and Zimbabwe says that it has its own problems.

Polonius counseled his son Laertes in Act 1 Scene 3 of Shakespeare's Hamlet, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For a loan often loses both itself and a friend . . . "  As a child, you like I, when check-mated in a game -- whether tag or wrestling or hide-and-seek or whatever -- may have asked for a do-over.  Those, after all, were games.  What you and I, and America, have played here is not a game.  Behaviors have consequences.  So, now it's truth and consequences.  Our "allies" were such when we were giving, lending, supporting and defending.  They won't be when it is we with hat in hand.

Comment:  When -- in addition to being unable to pay Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans' pensions, etc. -- our federal government cannot buy artillery or ammo, bombers or bombs . . . missiles or munitions . . . satellites or submarines, tanks or troops; when, indeed, America cannot defend itself, will the world's thug dictators and the Islamofascist terrorists morph into moderates, "play fair" by not kicking us when we're down, become suddenly enamored of our "diplomacy"?

America's "greatest generation" was told, growing up, to "save a little for a rainy day."  It's raining cats and dogs, folks, and all of the animal kingdom is lined up in pairs.  America's people in just the last few months have begun to save more, but immeasurably too little and decades too late.  Meanwhile, congress so far this year has increased, just for example, the budget for:  Commerce, State and Justice by 11.7%; Agriculture 11.9%; Interior-Environment 17%; State Department's foreign operations 33.4%; Transportation and HUD (Housing and Urban Development) 25.1%.  Heck, Homeland Security has spent $248 million on new furniture.  (Special thanks to my TN-2 Congressman John J. [Jimmy] Duncan for these details.)

House of Representatives Republicans -- via the "Republican Study Committee -- are scheduled tomorrow to make public their own healthcare reform plan.  If the plan is worthy, I applaud them and yell "yahooooo".  If, as I expect, it is not worthy, I'll clap with one hand and yell "boooooooooo".  The elements I'd like are as follows:

• Sunset Medicare.  As to Parts A and B: For those age 60-or-older continue Medicare under existing rules.  For those younger than 60, eliminate Medicare coverage.  As to Part D: The existing rules will apply for exactly one year, then be gone.
• Sunset Medicaid..  The existing rules will apply for exactly one year, then be gone.
• Sunset Social Security.  For those age 60-or-older continue Social Security under existing rules and rates until they die.  For those 50-and-older, but less than 60, continue Social Security less 5% for each year or part-year less than 60.  For those younger than 50 nothing.  Social Security benefits will be paid from the general fund.
• Sunset SCHIP.  Same formula as for Medicaid.
• Eliminate/repeal an and all mandates on health insurance companies vis-a-vis what they must cover and where they may sell.
• Amend tort law so that the loser pays legal and court costs for the winner.
• Eliminate government licensing of practitioners.
• Repeal all proscriptions on the sale of human organs, tissues and bodies in the free marketplace, ala ebay.
• Disallow any future mandates on employers requiring the provision of medical benefits.
• Either equalize the tax treatment of employers and individuals vis-a-vis medical insurance and medical care, or pass the FairTax.

In short, fairly restore the free marketplace.