Labor's Love's Lost

Once upon a time, families saw their fathers and husbands go out the door to work on jobs such as mine, not knowing if they would return home that evening.  I work at an underground limestone mining and processing plant in Missouri.  Unlike previous generations, the issue of workplace fatalities is not foremost in our minds. 

Today, we receive email notices of any fatalities that take place at other mining operations in order to make us aware of the dangers that lurk.  We have safety representatives from our union that meet with management's safety department.  Safety milestones are met with awards and/or bonus payments. 

Today's workers face a different workplace than our fathers and grandfathers.  Much of that is the result of their efforts to unionize nearly 75 years ago.  I am thankful for the foundation they laid in helping build a safe and prosperous company.

I can only imagine what it was like at that time.  The Great Depression was raging.  Their work was extremely dangerous.  The owners knew five men were waiting to replace any one of his workers, so pay was low, conditions were poor and too often a worker was seen as expendable.  Workers were caught between the twin specters of unemployment and the hazards of work.

The effort to form a union was contentious, but it wasn't born of greed; it was a move for self-preservation.  The workers at that time lived and died holding the short end of the stick.  Their efforts to stand together, in their eyes was no different than children standing together to fend off the playground bully.  They did not seek to conquer, but only to establish a truce.

I am honored to serve office in the union they established.  I understand that there is a balance of power between our union brothers and management.  I do not seek a power shift, but to maintain the status quo that has allowed our company to flourish.

I am also a realist.  As new businesses are started around this state and our nation, those workers will be able to reap many of the rewards that unions have previously fought for, such as a 40 hour work week, overtime pay, workplace safety, healthcare and other benefits.  In such an environment, I understand that the need for a union may not be seen. 

In that light, the continued decrease in the percentage of workers who belong to a union is expected.  In fact, something would surely be wrong in the workplace if unions weren't on the decrease.  But we must be cautious in believing that there is no longer a place for unions.  Unions exist to offer balance between owners and workers, even in non-union workplaces.  The potential to bring in a union is always in the mind of non-union business owners.

With all that said, I believe the national union leaders have lost their minds.  I won't go to the extent of quoting Teamsters head Jimmy Hoffa Jr., since I try to refrain from including the type of language he used yesterday while introducing President Obama at a campaign rally.  [You can follow this link to read it yourself]  In essence, he seemed to be either inciting violence (at worst) or using crass language (at best) to claim that workers should be at war with the Tea Party and Republican leaders.

What Hoffa and other leaders such as AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka have forgotten is that they work for the workers, the workers don't work for them.  In today's world, the greatest benefit to union workers is a rising economy.  When the economy is growing, unemployment decreases, wages increase, businesses expand creating better opportunities for workers and our 401(k) accounts or pension funds thrive.

Instead of fighting for what would do us real good, they are out fighting a losing battle - trying to turn the tide of decreasing union membership.  Instead of encouraging Washington to find ways to grow the economy, labor leaders are looking to change the rules and make it easier for workers to unionize (even without a majority vote) while giving government mediators the ability to impose a contract against the workers wishes, force companies to recognize smaller partitioned groups and dictate where a business may locate new production.

It's time for our union leaders to stop fighting yesterday's battles and do what is right for workers today.  Just as it would be counter-productive for our nation to close its borders and stop importing foreign made goods, its futile to believe that we can return to the 1950's hey day of union membership.  That day and the need for it has passed.

It's time to find a future for Labor in America.  We can understand our place as the proper counterweight offering balance for the American worker in a growing economy, always ready to act when and where the need arises.  Or we can become parasitic dead weight, dragging the economy down with us.

In today's America, do we want to ride in the back of the bus toward prosperity or the front seat on the road to austerity.  That choice is up to us. 

We Seem to Have Misplaced Your Green Jobs, Mr. President.

There is no Green economy - not today, not tomorrow, not ever. 

Of course, we don't have a carbon economy, either.  The truth is that we just have an economy.  Energy isn't the end all be all of our economy, it's simply the means to an end.

For our widget makers, the greatest consideration on energy is the relationship of cost, efficiency, safety and dependability.  Throughout mankind's development, as we moved from using our natural environment (sun, wind, water) for energy to wood to coal to oil to natural gas to nuclear power, that relationship has been the driver.  Depending on the application, location, the given industrial environment, resource availability, etc., whichever energy source will be used will naturally vary.  At my place of employment, we use charcoal briquettes to light a natural gas-fired lime kiln and natural gas to light a coal-fired lime kiln.

Any attempt to force everyone into using the same energy source no matter the external issues, would be as wrongheaded as telling me to use steam to power my handheld calculator.  I'm quite happy with the solar chip in my calculator and even in my patio lights.  But if cellphones were required to use the same energy source, smartphones would never have been developed.

Solar & Wind - paying more & receiving less

Later this week, President Obama will make a speech to outline his new jobs program.  I expect that we will hear much about Green jobs and the Green economy.  As I said earlier, they don't exist.  What he really means is that we will either a) reorganize the economy to make green energy cheaper by artificially raising the price of using oil and coal or b) spend tax dollars to further subsidize Green businesses that can't compete in the marketplace.

Under the first scenario, it's hard to see job creation when we raise the costs of production and in the second, Obama fails to see that cost is only one part of the consideration on energy use.  Making solar and wind power cheaper will not make it more efficient and dependable which are two very big drawbacks.  Of course when we check the above chart, we see that if you account for the subsidies, solar and wind are over 20 times more expensive than oil and coal.

This past week, Solyndra, a solar energy company closed its doors.  Obama gave them half a billion dollars in loan guarantees from the stimulus package in 2009 to prop up Solyndra as it sought investors.  The president had touted Solyndra as part of the future of the coming Green Economy.  Rich Lowry writes at National Review,

The stakes in the battle to manufacture solar panels are exceedingly small. Solar power accounts for less than 1 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. The Obama administration’s fervency for it has more to do with the romance of its clean, postindustrial image than with economics. Obama said last year, “The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra.” If that were so, it never would have needed half a billion of our dollars in the first place.

How did it fail, even with that amount of money?  The real problem was that Solyndra was not a profitable business.  As analyst Peter Lynch told ABC news,

"Here's the bottom line," Lynch said. "It costs them $6 to make a unit. They're selling it for $3. In order to be competitive today, they have to sell it for between $1.5 and $2. That is not a viable business plan."

As the President imagines it, the move to Green Energy is not about cost, efficiency, safety and dependability, it is about fundamentally changing our economy.  He will try to entice us to make the change, but if people must be forced into changing, well, then so be it. 

Why the need for change?  I'm still waiting for someone to explain what pot of gold is waiting for us at the end of the Green Energy rainbow.  The President claims that jobs await us if we make the change, but ask Spain how that worked out for them.  Heck, ask the 1,100 employees who no longer have a job at Solyndra.

We can never forget that what we really have is a $$-based economy.  When the economy ceases to be about the almighty dollar, we cannot expect to see job creation.  On Thursday night, if President Obama's new plans are not about lowering the costs of doing business, but are instead about fundamental change to our economy, we will have a long wait for those new jobs.

How the Ball Lost Its Bounce

Zero.

0.00000

Nada.

That is how many jobs were added in the August jobs report - zero.  At this point can anyone even trot out the cliched "unexpectedly worse" line to describe this report?  It's absolutely not unexpected if you understand how our economy operates.

Let me provide a quick picture of how our economy works.

Imagine a bouncy ball - it represents the movement of our economy moving forward in time.  As the ball moves upward, our economy is experiencing growth.  But as the economy grows, poor decisions or wagers accumulate.  Think about the tech bubble or the housing bubble.  As people continue to overprice certain stocks or commodities, overhire & overspend, the ball begins to become weighted down by all this - we'll call it excess.

Burdened by the weight, the ball begins to fall.  Somewhere underneath is a natural floor which the ball will hit.  This is the downturn of a recession.  But when the ball hits this floor, all the excess will be broken off the ball and the bouncy ball will do what bouncy balls tend to do when they hit the floor quickly.  It will bounce back.  And the cycle will repeat itself if left alone.

The problem develops when the government tries to alter the cycle.  Can government help?  Yes, but only when it understands how.

In 2008-2009, both Presidents Bush & Obama saw an economy in a death fall and they believed they could and should do something about it and they did.  Rather than allow the ball to fall to its natural floor, they attempted to arrest the fall - which they did.

(Wait a minute.  Are you giving President Obama credit for ending the economic downturn?  Absolutely.)

The policies put into place, mostly by Obama, created a soft landing place for our economy, sort of like a pillow, in an attempt to protect Americans from being hurt by the fall.  It arrested the fall before it hit a natural floor, thus keeping the downturn from going as low as it may have. 

But, unlike what Obama says, that does not mean he prevented another Great Depression.  In fact, he has ensured that we would go through a depression.

By cushioning the fall, protecting homeowners, bailing out banks & the auto industry, funding states, Obama prevented the ball from shedding the excess that had accumulated on it.  Now it just sits there, overweighted with no bounce.  It's not going anywhere for a while.  This pretty much represents, if not a literal depression,  then at least the quagmire our economy is stuck in.

Even worse, the president's administration is putting in place new regulations that will represent obstacles to growth, so that even if we can get the ball bouncing, it will be hard to build any momentum.

Contrary to how this recession was handled, look at how Ronald Reagan reacted to taking office under a similar economic downturn.

Reagan understood that a falling economy could not be propped up.  Rather than attempt to stop the fall, he & Treasury Secretary Volker put into place policies that actually accelerated the fall.  By doing so, the economy hit the floor sooner and quicker.  This created an even larger bounce than would normally be expected.  The economy quickly shed the excess and took off. 

In addition, Reagan's tax & regulatory policies gave the economy room to grow so the ball bounced higher and higher than ever before and created a higher floor for the next bounce.

President Obama will give a speech next week on jobs.  I wish it mattered.  Unfortunately, I don't see how it does.  As long as our ball sits on the ground, covered in excess, surrounded by new regulations and the threat of higher taxes, it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

The Sky is Falling Said the Man With His Head in the Sand

So I'm working the overnight shift and I've been using part of my time twittering with a green Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) advocate in the UK who took exception to yesterday's post on the CERN CLOUD experiment.  I know I shouldn't, but hey, what the heck - I didn't have anything better going on?

As per usual, he first attempted to posit that maybe I'm arguing from an ideological basis rather than scientific.  If you know me, you know that's not the case.  I'm a natural skeptic and given that weather modeling is the classic example for Chaos Theory, it's a pretty high bar to clear for me on any climate model.  I want to see a theory that is testable and/or repeatable today, yesterday and tomorrow. 

Rather than offer me such a theory, he asked for me to produce one.  I'm not a climatologist and I'm not trying to push a theory.  All I am asking is for those who advocate AGW to make their case by putting in place a testable theory.  That's how science works.  Create a hypothesis, run experiments to see if the data fits; try to punch holes in your assumptions.

A scientific theory should be as sturdy as a house.  Any cracks in the foundation will spell doom.  Test, test and retest some more.  Probe any weaknesses in your hypothesis.  It must be able to withstand scrutiny and questioning from others.

But the AGW theory has been built very differently.  A hypothesis was created to explain a noticeable short term increase in temperature.  When the existing data did not conform to the hypothesis, it wasn't scrapped.  It was simply reshaped, but the basic claim, that humans are dramatically changing our climate, was never changed.  At no point has the model ever been able to make accurate predictions. 

The math is so contorted that it is now amusing.  Have you ever played one of those silly games where you take your age, do some mathematical calculations, only to end up with a predetermined answer?  Professor Mann's "hockey stick" graph showing a large recent increase in global temperature was surely based on similar equations.  Put any random numbers into it and you'd get the same hockey stick shaped graph.

I believe that the CERN CLOUD experiment is important because I would expect the large yellow ball of fire at the center of our solar system to play a large part in our climate and any changes taking place in it.  The initial IPCC AR1 model did not agree.  Each new model has gradually given the sun a bigger place in climate change, but only based on irradiance.  Thanks to Jasper Kirby, we now know that galactic cosmic radiation also plays a part.  The new data will force future models to add a whole new aspect to the solar effect.

Why is that important?  Because the greater the solar effect, the lesser the internal CO2 effect.  Bringing CO2 Climate Sensitivity down is paramount to creating a more realistic climate model.  Some AGW advocates are pushing a change of up to 4.0K with c=1.5, which is far from reality given the cooling that took place up to 1978 when CO2 emissions were still experiencing a massive increase during that time.  Lindzen-Choi-2011 gives a much more realistic number of 0.6, but even that may be too high in light of the new data.

The real question is this - how can we say the science is settled, when there are still so many unanswered questions?  Yes, the climate is changing.  But it is constantly changing - it's not static.  We are still learning the how and the why.  In truth, we may never know all that there is to know about our climate.

Of course, rather than offer any answers, my Twitter buddy kept questioning me.  That's not science - that's avoidance.  While he and his ilk attempt to scare you into believing that the air you breath is killing our planet, I find a much a greater danger in people who are so blind to what they don't know.

I know I don't have all the answers.  That's why I'm not afraid to continue looking.

Who's Anti-Science Now?

In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, signalling the end of the Soviet Empire.  At least that's how it was reported.  Like a football game, victory should never be openly declared until time has expired.  But by the time The Wall fell, the West, led by America had already taken a knee to run out the clock.  In truth, the end of the Soviet Empire was assured early in Ronald Reagan's second term.  When President Reagan introduced his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program, the Soviets had their collectivist legs knocked out from under them.  They had used up all their resources in defending the body blows Reagan's defense buildup had caused and were in no shape to withstand this new futuristic StarWars weapons system with its space-based Lasers.  StarWars' offensive potential (in the Soviets' minds) was a knock-out blow.

A similar knock-out blow may have been delivered against Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) recently.  But it may be years before most will learn anything of it.  In 1996, two Danish scientists hypothesized that the sun and cosmic rays promote the formation of cloud formation at the molecular level.  If true, it would show that changes in cloud formation (and thus climate temperatures) were directly correlated to changes in the the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere, which is controlled by the sun's magnetic field.

The day after presenting their hypothesis at a scientific conference in Britain, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), denounced their theory and sought to discredit them.  An attendee from the conference, spoke of their theory in a lecture at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories.  CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere. 

A CERN scientist, Jasper Kirby, saw the importance of the theory and developed an experiment that would create a cloud chamber.  In 1998, Kirby told the scientific press, "The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.”   Some in the scientific community were put off by the thought that such an experiment would take place and pressured CERN to withdraw support for Kirby.  It took nearly a decade to be able to move forward with the project and several years to build it.

The research was published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature.  In Kirby's cloud chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays), it follows that the sun has a large controlling effect on the Earth's temperature apart from its natural radiant effect.

This data will be very unpopular with those scientists whose livelihood relies on AGW for funding.  Many of these same scientists have decried the unscientific masses who deny the existence of AGW today.  Will they now step up and accept the science?  Or was their stance not really about science in the first place?

This is hard science with data originating at one of the premier scientific institutions on earth.  Of course it's too early to declare victory for common sense and good science.  But several year from now, we will see that while the IPCC began to unravel under it's own doctored science in 2010, it was when Kirby's research was released in August 2011 that the clock began to run out on the AGW scaremongers.

How odd is it that Reagan's threat of rays from space ended the Soviet threat, while cosmic rays from deep space may be the end of AGW?  Who knew science had such a wonderful sense of irony?

Talkin' Sports

On Wednesday, I joined my good friend on his new local cable access channel show, Talkin' Sports with Mike Boyd.  For the record, it was recorded in a basement in the presence of some pretty awful furniture (pimp couches, as we used to call them in college), but without the lively intro music of a Wayne's World production.  It is of course, only available in the greater Ste. Genevieve, Mo area.  As of yet, I know of no internet link to the production.

The topic of this week's show was youth sports.  I was invited as a board member of our local youth football league.  We discussed the pros and cons of the rapid expansion of competitive leagues for today's youth compared to our experiences 30-40 years ago.

My viewpoint is this:

• Sports teams, whether competitive or fun, are a great way to keep children away from the TV, computer or video games and be active.
• A good sense of competition is something that should be taught to children, but in smaller doses at the younger age levels. 
• Balancing the fun of the game is very important to building a love of the game.
• Too much of a good thing is bad.  Rotate sports with the seasons and don't become locked into following one year round.
• Parents need to be good examples to their children.  There's more to life than sports.

Too many parents and sports league organizers believe that by continually pushing the competitive edge to a younger group, they are increasing the chances for those children to develop the abilities and skills to play at the collegiate or even the (jackpot!) pro level.  But we often fail to realize that after the initial gain, a plateau is reached as the other communities develop similar programs. 

At that point, any increase in the ability of our players is met with a similar increase in the ability of their players, so any gains are short lived.  It's the classic Red Queen principle, which is taken from the Red Queen's race in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass. The Red Queen said, "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."  We've created an athletic "arms race".

As a parent, I've coached football, baseball, hockey, basketball and softball.  Toward the end of the show, I brought up the local gym hockey league.  It's hockey played in sneakers in a town without an ice rink.  None of our players will have any real opportunity of going anywhere with hockey.  Yet, this somewhat odd hybrid, co-ed game brings out the most joy and competitive spirit in all the sports I've coached. 

The games are standing room only, the trophies are huge (like the stanley cup), half the players and many of the parents don't really even understand hockey all that well, but this is what a child's game is all about.  It's of course, about winning; but not winning at the expense of the fun.  It's not about next year's team or college scholarships.  It's not about scouts or the sports' arms race.  It's just the unbridled joy of seeing the puck hit the back of the net on a child's face & watching a team of boys and girls swarm to celebrate together with a purity that will never be seen on any collegiate or pro team.

We talked often during the show about the love of the game, and the importance of instilling that in our players.  Perhaps, it goes even deeper than that.  Maybe it's really about the love of a game; any game.

Early in the movie WarGames, the WOPR computer asked, "Would you like to play a game"?  At the end, after seeing the end result of the Red Queen Principle played out in countless nuclear war game simulations, WOPR came to appreciate the enjoyment of the game.  The movie ends with the computer asking, "How about a nice game of chess?"

I don't know what happens next for youth sports or where it will end?  I would like my boy to have the opportunity to play baseball for his school when he grows up.  But if it means that he must join a team that plays a 100+ game schedule and trains year round at the age of eight,  then I guess I have a question I need to ask my son.

How about a nice game of chess?

Big Brother Wants to Be Your Friend on Facebook - (Updated)

I am a poor golfer.  But that is to be expected since I don't play very often.  I played about 10 rounds of golf during 2009-2010.  I have yet to play this year, but that will soon be rectified on Tuesday when I finally have the time to head out with my brother.  We will hit two different courses, playing 36 holes with the benefit of coupons.  My ability to play depends heavily on time and money, which are not normally in large supply in my life these days.

Pro golfer Paul Azinger made the news recently, but it wasn't for his ability to make birdies in a golf match.  It was birdies of a different sort - his tweets - that got him into hot water with his employer ESPN. 

Azinger is not the first person to point out that President Obama may be playing a little too much golf.  In fact, Golfer-in-Chief has become a well used nickname for Obama.  During the same time span that I've played 10 rounds of golf, the President has played 80.  It goes without saying, that he does not suffer for a lack of time or money.  I guess my time is spent up trying to earn enough money to pay his salary and his green fees while he is in office.  I sure hope he's using coupons when they're available.

So for anyone to point out the disturbing number of golf outings by Obama was not off base.  But ESPN, for whom Azinger works as a golf announcer, has decided that this was "not consistent with the social media policy" of the company (Disney).  Of course, ESPN took no issue when another employee, Kenny Mayne, tweeted a desire to hit another vehicle because of a Sarah Palin bumper sticker.  Maybe that is consistent with the policy because the target is a Republican.

My question is "where is the real problem in all of this"?  Is it in a policy that limits social media expression?  Or just  one that limits political speech?  

On Sunday, in the state of Missouri, a law took effect limiting social media contact between teachers and students.  Our school district, Sainte Genevieve R-II, went even further in limiting "texts" between teachers and students.

Earlier this week, my daughter had a question about choosing a faculty adviser for a campus Christian club.  I suggested that she text one of our church's musicians who also happens to work as a school administrator for a suggestion.  Of course, that is no longer allowed.  So, I had to be the go between for this dangerous conversation, surreptitiously attempting to aid the formation of a church club. Now I feel all dirty.

Is this where we stand in America now?  No longer do we attempt to punish the wrong doer.  Instead, we simply punish everyone.  If Disney has a problem with an employee publicly criticizing a Democrat, then make that the policy.  If I don't want my child to text a teacher or friend them on Facebook, then that is my responsibility.  A teacher who intends to do wrong with my daughter, will not be held back by a new school policy.

Perhaps the bigger question is, where does it stop?

Is Disney attempting to control the public discourse of its employees or simply being wary of any potential embarrassment to the company's image?  If they can exert control over an employee's social media presence, can they exert control over an employee's social interactions?

The school district, as an arm of the state, is seeking to limit not only the public social media of its employees, but also private communications; even those that involve family or church relationships.  

I am an avid user of the social media, but we must not allow this to devolve into an Orwellian Big Brother allowing the state and quasi-fascistic corporations such as Disney, among others, to coerce our behaviors, relationships and discourse.  They should not be my brother's keeper.

These workers are not owned by their employers.  They are rented help.  It should be enough to simply ask them to comport themselves in such a way as to bring honor to their employer, then discipline those who fail.  But in today's world where a moral code is no longer recognized, it is far easier to simply withhold free will than expect us to use it wisely.

When we allow others to remove our ability to use judgment, rather than punish those who fail to use it properly, we begin a process of penalizing exactly what we need more of - wise men and women.  We are marching either toward 1984 or Idiocracy.

Welcome to COSTCO.  I love you.

*** Updated ***
Since posting, I've been informed that the Missouri law in question was blocked by a Missouri Judge prior to taking effect on Sunday.  For more info on this, click here.

Of Pledges & Politics...

I pledge allegiance....to the notion of brevity.  At least, I will do my very best to maintain that pledge.  Perhaps it would be best to take back that pledge since I know good and well there may be a chance I won't keep to it.

Several other pledges have made it into the news.  Today, there was a bit of controversy as NBC opened up its coverage of the US Open golf tournament's final round with a patriotic bit.  Interspersed with other scenes, was a group of children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.  Well, except for the part where the children would have been saying the words "under God", which the NBC production team chose to edit out.

Later in the broadcast, the on-air host apologized for this "regrettable" oversight.  Perhaps it was inadvertant, a gliche.  Perhaps it is also inadvertant when the President skips over the "endowed by our Creator" language in the Declaration of Independence; or a gliche, maybe just an oversight.  "God" "Someone" knows the President doesn't have anybody to proofread his text when he speaks.  The fact that it happened on several occasions, I'm sure was just another gliche.

Earlier this week, there was a notable dispute between Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform over the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that many lawmakers have signed.  Signers promise to oppose any tax increase as well as “any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

The issue is that Coburn is trying to make a deal on a bill that would eliminate $6 billion in Ethanol subsidies.  Norquist believes that eliminating these subsidies would be a de facto "tax increase" and would break the pledge without a corresponding revenue reduction.

Leave aside the fact that ethanol subsidies are a terrible waste of tax dollars, such a pledge would make it impossible to govern well.  I understand the principle involved in seeking to keep taxes low, but it ties the hands of our elected officials.  Whether it be ethanol, wind or solar power, if a subsidy is bad then eliminate it.  By adding preconditions to the ability to make good laws, we inhibit the process. 

Ronald Reagan, on more than one occasion was able to achieve passage of a large tax cut bill, then later passed another bill with smaller tax increases.  Under Norquist's reasoning, Reagan would have been either unable to govern as he did or considered a traitor to conservative principles.

In other pledge-related news, GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has refused to sign a pro-life pledge from the Susan B. Anthony list group.  Romney stated that his opposition to the pledge was due to some language regarding funding of abortion providers and their affiliated organizations, which he felt could be construed to hospital funding.  Naturally the SBA disputes this notion, but Romney's pledge still sits unsigned.  As pro-life/anti-abortion as anyone, I take no issue with Romney's refusal. 

The most important pledge any President or Senator or any other American must use to make decisions that affect this nation, is the Pledge of Allegiance.  Being pro-life isn't about signing a restrictive pledge, but it is about what actions can be taken to advance the sanctitiy of life.  Romney has stated that if elected, he will support any reversal of Roe v. Wade, he will support the Hyde Amendment and will reinstate the Mexico City Policy. 

These all stand in contrast to the current occupant of the White House, who ended the Mexico City Policy allowing American tax dollars to fund foreign abortion services and whose healthcare legislation attempts to work around the Hyde Amendment.

Perhaps the removal of the mention of God or a Creator from our national conversation is more than an oversight or a gliche.  Perhaps far from being inadvertant, Obama's omission of God is a larger part of why he is the most pro-abortion President this nation has ever had.  Looking at Romney's words and actions in this context makes this issue go away for those of us who want to see abortion ended.

If Romney's name is next to Obama's next November, I can tell you who I will vote for right now.  And you won't need to me to sign a pledge on that promise.

If You Can't Take the Heat...

As many of us continue to gloat over Lebron's misfortune, I hope this will be a lesson to Albert Pujols and others who may consider shunning their first love in hopes of riches and championships elsewhere.

Remember, role players move from team to team.  But the true franchise players are the foundation that teams are built around.  Dirk was the foundation, just as Michael Jordan once was in Chicago.  When a player chooses to take the money and run, they are acknowledging that they aren't up to that task and/or money was more important.

Touching Base....

As most of my faithful readers are aware, I have been silent for many weeks.  I made an editorial decision to maintain silence on this site while I am negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement on behalf of my local union.  I felt that since much of my commentary touches on issues that affect businesses and unions, it would be better that I muzzle myself during this process.  If all goes well, we will have a new agreement in place by June 30th.  If negotiations stall or our membership rejects an agreement, this process will, by necessity, go on longer.

Once we are finished, whenever that happens to be, I promise that I will return with a vengeance.  I have many opinions just ready to burst from my fingertips.  In fact, I'm having trouble, even as I type, to keep myself from speaking out.  Unfortunately the only current issues that I would feel comfortable discussing are the Palin emails (why are they so important, but we can't see anything from Obama's past?) and Anthony's Wiener (good to know that Chris Matthews has referred to those of us who find what AW did wrong, as culturally backwards), neither of which deserve more than a simple parenthetical reference so it is far simpler for me to shut down until such time that I feel comfortable to speak freely.

You may be wondering what I have been doing to keep myself occupied during my self-imposed silence.  My oldest child is now a high school graduate and we've had many tear-filled events to attend.  My youngest has began his baseball season with me coaching yet again.  He is off to a stellar 2-0 record thus far.  My middle child has sought to go fishing quite often and caught a beautiful catfish on Wednesday which promptly jumped off the hook and hopped back in the lake before it could be grabbed - a dinner lost.  My sister has finally finished medical school and is now Dr. Boo.  And of course, I've had the pleasure of spending a bit more time with the beautiful Dawn.

In the next few weeks, I may drop in to share some fiction, discuss sports or post a sentimental-side story.  Or I may not.  I just don't really know.  But I hope that when I return, that you will return with me.  For today, I just wanted to touch base so you know where I've been.

God Bless

Ruminations From the Void

I have had a lot to say about our budget issues.  I will never be the first to say that we tax too little, although we probably do tax too little.  But, before the pitchfork and torch crowd makes it's way to my front door, let me explain.  We tax too little for a few reasons.

1. Tax rates are too high for top earners - when tax rates are too high, income is shifted, hidden or lost which means that fewer taxes are collected.  Solution - lower tax rates for top earners.
2. Loopholes are too big and there are too many - high tax rates combined with too many loophole deductions means fewer taxes collected.  Solution - lower tax rates while closing the loopholes (deductions).
3. 45% of Americans pay no income tax - the Reagan and Bush tax cuts have moved too many off the tax rolls.  Refundable tax credits remove many more.  It's hard to believe that those who have cell phones, computers, satellite tv, blue ray players and an x-box can't pay a small share of income tax.  Solution - set a minimum tax rate of 5% that all income earners pay.

Some will agree with me, many won't.  It's easy to just say the rich can afford to pay more.  Our top rate is now 35%, yet the super rich 400 paid an average tax rate of 17% last year.  Rep. Paul Ryan's The Path to Prosperity plan would close many loopholes and lower the top rate to 25%.  Far from a giveaway to the rich, his plan like mine, may just collect higher revenues from these rich than President Obama's plan to end the Bush tax cuts.  Obama is fond of saying that's it's a question of fairness, but it's not.  It's a question of math and his is fuzzy.

For a better look at the math of spending cuts compared to tax rate increases, please read this paper, Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending by Alberto F. Alesina and Silvia Ardagna.  At 36 pages, it's half the length of Ryan's budget plan, but will do more to convince you of the wisdom of Ryan's approach on spending and taxes.  In it, Alesina and Ardagna write,

For fiscal adjustments we show that spending cuts are much more effective than tax increases in stabilizing the debt and avoiding economic downturns. In fact, we uncover several episodes in which spending cuts adopted to reduce deficits have been associated with economic expansions rather than recessions

After reviewing the data of many fiscal adjustments (attempts to lower deficits), they find,

In successful episodes total primary spending as a percentage of GDP falls by about 2 percent of GDP. Total revenues actually decline of about half of percentage point of GDP.  Thus, successful fiscal adjustments are completely based on spending cuts accompanied by modest tax cuts! On the contrary, in unsuccessful adjustments total revenue goes up by almost 1.5 per cent of GDP and primary spending are cut by about 0.8 of GDP. Once again this comparison points in the direction of spending cuts as the more successful ways  of fixing budget problems.  Regarding the composition of spending and revenue the most striking comparison is given by the transfers item. In successful adjustments transfers fall by 0.83 per cent of GDP, while in unsuccessful adjustments they grow at about 0.4 per cent, a huge difference between the two episodes of 1.2 percent of GDP. This comparison points in a clear direction: it is very difficult if not impossible to fix public finances when in trouble without solving the question of automatic increases in entitlements. Regarding the composition of revenues, again as above the most striking difference is on income taxes.

I am not a rich person.  If solving our problems was about figuring out who has all the money and then going and taking some of it, I'd be more inclined to listen to what Obama has to say since it's not my money he's after.  But his math and economics couldn't be more wrong.  The truth is that taking more of their money will more likely cause me to be poorer.  And when we run out of their money, then they will come for yours €€and mine.

A Wall Street Journal article by Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder Higher Taxes Won't Reduce the Deficit, points out their research that shows for every dollarthat taxes are raised, the gov't creates more than a dollar of new spending.  Keep this in mind if you still think that raising taxes will fix our problems.

Just ask yourself this question.  If you are in debt because your spouse charges too much on your credit card, is getting a second job to bring in more income your first move?  Don't know about you, but cutting up the credit cards would be my first choice.  Returning some of the purchases would be the second.  Cut back on dining out would be third.  Getting a second job would be somewhere around 15th on my list.  Bringing in more income with a second job, but not fixing the spending issue will move me closer to divorce, not solvency.

Charles Krauthammer makes a worthwhile argument that we should fix the spending side first, get that in order, then consider the tax side.  That should be a decent compromise.  But it won't be seen as one.

On illegal immigration, the conservative position has been to secure the border first, then discuss where we go from there as far as amnesty is concerned.  The question of amnesty isn't the core problem.  The problem is that they are still crossing the border as I write.  Granting amnesty will not eliminate the real problem.

On that same note, higher taxes will not eliminate the deficit.  Spending is the core problem.  Only after that is fixed, can we adjust taxes to fit properly.  I troubleshoot at work all the time.  Identify the core problem first and fix that, then address any secondary issues afterward.

As always, feel free to tell me where I'm wrong, but I ask that you take a moment to read Alesina and Ardagna's paper and Paul Ryan's plan first and please come at me with at least a few facts or stats.  I don't feel like responding to claims of greedy Republicans with ties to shady Wall Street types who want to kill your grandmother and blow up nursing homes so Bush & Cheney can enrich their oil buddies.  I've seen that movie before and it's a bit boring.

>>  On a related note, former Democrat Presidential nominee Walter Mondale, whom I mention in an earlier blog post, writes in the Washington Post,

We will not be able to control our budget deficits without raising taxes. That simple reality has brought us to a moment of truth in American politics. President Obama’s speech Wednesday lived up to that moment, and now Democrats and Republicans in Congress must take a similar stand.

Many have described my 1984 presidential campaign promise to raise taxes as exemplifying the folly of proposing tax hikes during an election. Although the rebounding economy and improving job picture that year probably had more to do with President Ronald Reagan’s reelection than my pledge did, there are certainly political lessons for anyone considering tax increases today. In particular, avoid generalities, and clearly link taxes to addressing concrete national needs.

Well, if old Fritz wants to starkly contrast the boom of the Reagan Recovery to our current convalescence under President Obama by claiming that a promise to raise taxes will be politically viable now, since we don't have that pesky booming economy and millions of jobs being added quarterly to distract the masses, I will quote the President and say "Go for it."

>>  This headline over at FoxNews is not surprising at all,  Obama's $5 Billion Weatherizing Program Wastes Stimulus Funds, Auditors Find.  Read and we find that in Deleware,

...costs for the low-income housing program stemmed from paying contractors to do simple, inexpensive fixes -- like insulating attics or sealing gaps -- but who instead went the path of replacing furnaces, windows and doors, all at a much greater cost. Much of the work was authorized by an administrator and a contractor, neither of whom is still employed with the state program, the newspaper reported.

"The cash grab that went on was just amazing," Allen Luzak, a weatherization expert with the Delaware Energy Office told the newspaper.

So far, only 689 homes have been retrofitted while roughly 6,000 families are on the waiting list for help. The attorney general's office has been investigating the program for the past year but hasn't filed criminal charges yet

Of the $5 billion allotted, only $2.4 billion has been spent, which by my math means we could be $2.4 billion closer to closing the deficit by cancelling this program right now.

>>  Even as I am preparing to send my daughter off to college in the fall, I can't help but take note of the many voices (with whom I tend to agree), that continue to warn of the burgeoning Higher Education Bubble.  Now Paypal founder Peter Thiel has joined in and even funded an unothodox program that will take 20 kids under 20, remove them from the college system and pay them for two years to start a company. 

Dilbert creator Scott Adams writes that college should teach entrepeneurship, but Thiels plan sounds like a better approach.  The key is the difference between training and educating, as NRO's Phi Beta Con blog addresses. 

Mr. Adams commits an error described in Albert Jay Nock’s 1931 Theory of Education in the United States — confusing education with training. Higher education should develop the mind; trade schools and work experience should develop vocational skills.

And now even one of my favorite comic-strips, Pearls Before Swine, has noted the problem with the overselling of college. (Yes, I am willing to listen to guys who write for the funny papers.  If anyone knows about wasting money on a degree that has little use for them, it's probably these guys.)

>> There are indications that a few NATO nations will request a new resolution from the UN authorizing regime change in Libya.  Based on the current results, either this will happen or the status quo will be locked in moving forward.  Short of a more clear directive, along with boots on the ground, Gaddafi does not appear to be going anywhere, anytime soon.  For the European nations that depend on Libyan oil, this will be an unacceptable result. 

For the Obama administration, the lesson should be that over the last 50 years it has become clear that for success, military action must be an "all-in" action.  From Vietnam to Grenada, Panama to Bosnia and Iraq to Somalia, that lesson should now be clear.  America can no longer choose to act in a half-hearted manner with our military.  Determine a goal and use whatever means necessary to achieve that goal.  The current UN resolution, with it's restriction on ground troops, is wholly antithetical to US involvement and shows the inadequacy of the UN's multi-lateral approach.

>>  Ed Morissey at HOTAIR notes an article in The Fiscal Times by James Cooper that shows "For the first time since the Great Depression, households are receiving more income from the government than they are paying the government in taxes."

As you can see from the chart, tax revenues are not too low.  Even with the recession, our tax revenue as a percentage of household income in still higher than it was just prior to the JFK tax cut when the top effective rate was around 90% of income.  The problem is that transfer payments, which topped out at 5% during the Great Depression are now approaching 20% of personal income.  That, of course is not healthy and definitely not sustainable.

The key to our nation's solvency must come from pro-growth policies that limit federal spending.  President Obama's policies seek to do the opposite.

>>  Not sure if I will be doing much blogging this week.  After work tomorrow, I will be here -

I will be taking my son Nate to a ballgame at Busch stadium.  His birthday was Saturday and this was one of his presents. (Rain, rain, stay away)

After leaving work on Thursday, I will be leaving town with my family - destination Dauphin Island.  I am looking forward to a sunrise Easter church service on the beach.

Please don't be jealous.  This trip will be a replacement for our normal summer vacation.  I will be spending much of the summer negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement on behalf of my union and am unable to make any plans until we have a new agreement in place.  Unlike our President, my travel plans are dictated by my job responsiblities.  (sorry - I had to get a little dig in there)

So, envy me now & I will envy you in the summertime.

God Bless.

O Waiver, Where Art Thou?

On May 2nd, I will personally become acquainted with our President's failed promise that under his health care reform law, we could keep our current insurance if we wanted to.  On that day, our union will begin negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with management to replace the contract that will end on June 30th.  First order of business on May 2nd will be a presentation on health insurance.  Even now, many of our senior members are choosing to retire under the current agreement, rather than take a chance on what our health care benefit will look like on July 1st.

My employer has been self-insured for the vast majority of health care expenditures for many years now.  There are two primary exceptions to this.  One, they pay a third party insurance carrier for a catastrophic coverage plan for its employees and two, our insurance coverage has a lifetime benefit maximum.  On average, less that 1% of employee's health care expenses meet the catastrophic limit each year and as far as I know, none have ever met the lifetime cap.

Over the life of the current five year contract, the cost of our health care plan has averaged a yearly increase in the low single digits with a cumulative increase under 10% over the last four years.  Both management and our union have worked to keep expenses low.  Part of that plan was having our union members cover a greater portion of the health care costs.  Under the previous contract, employees paid less than 20% of expenses, but in the most recent year, employees paid just under 30% of the total cost of the insurance plan.

Additionally, management began offering certain preventative care provisions free of charge to employees.  As they examined the data, the company realized that less than 5% of covered employees would use over a third of the health care dollars spent each year.  It was cheaper to treat and find issues early rather than wait until they became health problems.

Despite the inherent faults in the health care system, my employer, working with my union brothers and sisters had found a way forward to bring what were formerly 15 - 20% yearly increases and created a sustainable program that worked well.  Negotiations for this next contract brought hope that any wage increases would do more than simply pay for the additional health insurance costs.  That, of course, is now out the window.

A Parent's Prayer

I reach out my hand to grasp it, but it falls through my fingers like, well... sand.  Try as I might, I cannot grab a hold of time and stop it.  Time is a journey; not a destination.  And no matter how I might attempt to restrain it, this train will keep to it's schedule.  It knows no reverse and makes no stops.

Often, I convince myself that I am the conductor of the train; that I, and I alone, am in control of the ride.  I imagine that I am the man in charge.  Steering a train is pretty easy - you just follow the track.  At least until you come to a switch.  Left or right?  I choose left, but the train goes right.  Suddenly, I realize that I never was steering the train. It was a delusion of mine.  The train was just following the path that was laid out for it.

Sometimes, we are so eager to feel that we have control, that we will consciously ignore the tell-tale signs.  Our mind plays tricks on us and we are more than happy to play along.  But our delusion emits a false sense of security and that can put us in danger.

Tonight was my daughter's Senior Prom.  It's a good bet that everyone of those teenagers believe that they are in control of their life.  But they couldn't be more wrong.

On all the large events such as this, my daughter wonders if this will be the night that she will lose one of her classmates.  As invincible as her and her classmates feel, they recognize that control is illuoisory.  Yet by their own actions, they choose to believe the illusion.

Until morning, when they all return home safely, I will be up all night praying for them.  Earlier this evening, a memorial was held to remember a young man who didn't make it home safely one night a few years back.  I can't imagine the grief that our friends went through in losing their child.  But on nights like this I try.  I don't want to, but often the mind is as uncontrollable as the movement of time.

I lost one of my best friends during college.  I never imagined our lives could end so soon.  Before my life had really even started, his was over.  We were only a year removed from where my daughter now stands.

In a few months, she will be leaving our home and heading off to college.  At that point, I will have done all that I have been tasked to do.  Any remaining illusion of control that I have in her life will fade.

Leaving this town, she will seek to make a new life for herself and I couldn't be happier for her.  Small towns tend to skew perceptions.  The big lights of the bigger cities may expose faults that were hard to see before or enable them to see the beauty that lies hidden deep in the shadows.   My beautiful daughter has yet to realize how wonderful she really is.  The truth lies out there for her; she just needs to go and find it.

Whatever she makes of her life, I want her to understand, though, who is really in control of her life.  No matter the desires of her heart, I hope that she always remembers that it is God who is in control.  In the Bible, Paul points out that we must die to live; we must lose to win.  Faith is taking our hand off the wheel and allowing God to do the driving.

Last week at church, my son Nate and I sang one of my favorite songs, Jesus is For Losers.  It's a song Steve Taylor wrote after his failed attempt to achieve rock stardom his way, rather than following what God wanted.  As the sands of time continue to fall through my fingers and my Nicole's journey continues forward, I pray she never becomes too successful to realize that she is still a loser like me, broken at the foot of the cross.

The only thing we can control in this world is our own actions; and even in this we often find ourselves losing the battle with our sinful nature.  For me tonight, Faith is allowing my illusion that I can protect my family at all times to fade.  All I can do is pray that I have done my part as her parent so that her actions will be safe and then pray that God will find a way to protect her from the hundreds of other dangers that are beyond her control....and mine.

Go; go with God, but go...

Jesus is For Losers
by Steve Taylor

If I was driven
Driven ahead by some noble ideal
Who took the wheel?

If I was given
Given a glimpse of some glorious road
When was it sold?

So caught up in the chase
I keep forgetting my place

Just as I am
I am stiff-necked and proud
Jesus is for losers
Why do I still play to the crowd?

Just as I am
Pass the compass, please
Jesus is for losers
I'm off about a hundred degrees

If I was groping
Groping around for some ladder to fame
I am ashamed

If I was hoping
Hoping respect would make a sturdy footstool
I am a fool

Bone-weary every climb
Blindsided every time

Just as I am
I am needy and dry
Jesus is for losers
The self-made need not apply

Just as I am
In a desert crawl
Lord, I'm so thirsty
Take me to the waterfall

And if you're certain
Certain your life is some cosmic mistake
Why do you shake?

And if you're certain
Certain that faith is some know-nothing mask
Why do you still ask?

They don't grade here on the curve
We both know what we deserve

Just as you are
Just a wretch like me
Jesus is for losers
Grace from the blood of a tree

Just as we are
At a total loss
Jesus is for losers
Broken at the foot of the cross

Just as I am
Pass the compass, please
Jesus is for losers
I'm off about a hundred degrees

Just as I am
In a desert crawl
Lord, I'm so thirsty
Take me to the waterfall




Visions of America

After speechifying VP Joe Biden into a restful sleep on Wednesday, President Obama began what Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard has dubbed Obama's Orwellian Deficit Reduction Tour to "Discuss his Vision for Bringing Down our Deficit Based on Shared Responsibility and Shared Prosperity".  This plan, of course is a plan that looks pretty much like his big spending 2012 budget proposal, except with more tax increases added in.   Obama proposes to appoint a commission to tackle future deficit reductions, despite having already had a deficit commission whose recommendations the President has chosen to ignore.

What the President refuses to acknowledge publicly is that raising taxes on the rich cannot close the deficit.  While he seeks to raise tax rates for those making $250,000 per year, if we took everyone who makes at least $100,000 per year and taxed them at 100%, that would only add $1.5 trillion in revenue.  Our current year deficit is $1.6 trillion.  So either he knows that the deficit cannot be taxed away on the rich & he fully intends to raise taxes on the middle class too or he just doesn't really care about the deficit & is in campaign mode.

Note the scalpel

 

Where Two Paths Diverge...

Here is the truth about the future: We are living on borrowed money and borrowed time. These deficits hike interest rates, clobber exports, stunt investment, kill jobs, undermine growth, cheat our kids, and shrink our future. 

- Walter Mondale, Democratic Presidential nominee, July 19, 1984 Democratic National Convention

Today, President Obama acknowledged reality.  Just two months ago, he submitted a 10 year budget that said and did nothing to lower our deficit in the near term.  Unusual as it is for a President to scrap his own plan, Obama was forced to present a new plan due to the reasoned response to Paul Ryan's The Path to Prosperity and it's acceptance as a serious proposal.  His choice was to either allow the Republicans to direct the narrative or attempt to offer a competing vision on how to accomplish the same goals.

 

Despite acknowledging reality today, the President chose to offer a 12 year plan that will do little other than make it seem he is doing something.  Talk of commissions, defense cuts and future year triggers means that he has no intention of changing his current spending plans.  Instead, he offered numerous tax increases as his planned "spending cuts".  His new approach sounds like his old approach and brings to mind another failed liberal politician.  

“If Dukakis is elected, he would act next year as he acted last week: trim here and there, but then take a frequent flyer to the last resort [new taxes]. He would accelerate rather than break the spending urge in Congress.”

- William Safire
New York Times
6/29/88

Americans have come to the realization that the status quo is not sustainable.  In Ryan's plan, the Republicans have offered a real plan that will seek to balance the budget over the long term by overhauling our taxcode to make it fairer and making changes to Medicare and Medicaid now in order to make these programs sustainable.  In responding to the Republicans 2012 budget proposal, Obama has chosen to champion a course that would make Michael Dukakis proud by pledging to tax our way to prosperity. 

For all the faults with the President's plan, the greatest is that he attempts to hijack the narrative with a falsehood.  The only real spending cuts he offers are tax increases.  As I'm sure many of you have heard, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.  In using an Orwellian nomenclature of calling a tax increase, a "spending cut", Obama seeks to confuse the issue.

In the 1990's a combination of events led to a few years of budget surpluses.  Following the fall of the Soviet Union, National Defense was downsized to cash in on the Peace Dividend.  After being elected, Bill Clinton raised taxes on an expanding economy and then two years later, a Republican congress began reigning in discretionary spending.  Looking at the chart, we can see spending increased back to 20% of GDP following 9/11 and was held there until Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats regained control of Congress.  From there, spending took an immediate upswing.  Under Obama, this spending has been made worse.

Deficits are expected to increase in a recession as revenues decrease, which did happen in 2008.  But by shifting our spending baseline in such an extreme way, Obama has accelerated our impending demise.  The truth is that with or without our current increases in discretionary spending, our spending will soon drive us into a hole that threatens to swallow us.

The President's response to raise taxes while leaving entitlements untouched will only delay by a few years the inevitable.  Soon our entire revenue stream will be spent on entitlements.

Raising tax revenues from the historic level of 18% of GDP will only offer us, at best, a temporary respite.  Of course, raising tax rates has no guarantee of increasing revenue.   As Larry Kudlow writes at National Review,

Of course, the president’s formula of estimating higher revenues to lower the deficit is completely wrong. The reality is that higher tax rates will slow the economy, inhibit new start-up companies, penalize investors, and may very well lose revenues and increase the deficit.

It is questionable what raising tax rates will do to our economy.  What is not questionable is what will happen to our debt if we do not address the real source of our future troubles.

No amount of tax increases will ever be able to manage debt of this size.  Any plan that does not seek to alter or amend Medicare spending is not a serious plan.  Today, our entitlement spending is 58% of our spending.  Add in interest payments and we're now over 75%.  National defense and discretionary spending are left with only 1/4 of our budget.  In the past, our defense spending was close to half of all spending.  Today it sits at 20% and the President looks to cut if further.

 

While he presents us with cuts from a declining slice of the pie, he makes no offer to deal with the programs that will soon make up the entire pie.  What happens then?  Imagine a government shutdown that never ends.

As I have tried to make clear, we cannot ignore the real driver of our budget deficit.  It's the huge twinkie in the room.  Last week's budget showdown over spending cuts in our non-defense discretionary spending is chump change compared to the real issue - entitlements.

That's a big twinkie and it will continue to grow no matter how high taxes are raised. 

In 2008, a very liberal Senator Barack Obama ran as a centrist, promising to cut the budget, not raise taxes on the middle class and be pragmatic and do what works.  Now, when his leadership has been challenged to a large degree by Rep. Ryan, a very liberal President Obama showed us his true colors - tax and spend.  His proposal will soak the rich while cutting defense in order to keep spending more on "investments".

40 years ago, Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security spending was 4% of GDP.  Today it is 10%.  In another 40 years, it is projected to be at 18% - the historical average for tax revenues.  At that point, we have no other money left for defense, interest payments or running the government.  Then, or even sooner, those programs, along with a whole host of other government spending will be cut or eliminated - unless we make changes now.

In choosing to confront Ryan's Path to Prosperity, the President, instead chose to offer up a European vision for a Path to Austerity.  As the two paths diverge, the choice is clear.