tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71342246619250567522024-03-05T22:27:52.447-05:00Talk It Up AmericaEditor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-56249690803533920072022-07-12T10:50:00.006-04:002022-07-12T10:50:38.521-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><b style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: times;">Lower Gas Prices are a Good Thing</span></b></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: times;">I was shocked when I read the “<a href="https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/higher-gas-prices-are-needed/">Higher Gas Prices Are Needed</a>” column in the July edition of Virginia Business. <br /><br />Affordable energy is not the result of any subsidy, nor is it a subsidy in and of itself. “Cheap” energy is the result of a free-market, capitalist system that, absent government intervention, always results in the most efficient allocation of scarce resources. <br /><br />In fact, the situation is quite the opposite of the premise stated in the column. Cheap energy is not the result of subsidies, nor is it a subsidy. When government purposefully and willfully obstructs carbon-based energy development and production, that government is in fact providing a subsidy for so-called green energy projects. The Biden Administration is very transparent about this and has a stated policy goal of weaning the USA off of the oil and gas industry. The Administration arbitrarily stopped all federal oil and gas leasing on shore and off shore, it stopped issuing permits for safe and efficient oil and gas pipelines, it stopped the Congressionally authorized development of the substantial and proven ANWR oil and gas reserves, and it unleashed the punitive powers of the EPA on all things carbon. <br /><br />The United States has more coal than any other nation in the world, enough to supply nearly 50% of our current demand for electricity for hundreds of years at costs that make green energy look like highway robbery. Thanks to improved burner technology, but for CO2, coal can be burned completely emission free. The USA also has more proven oil and gas reserves than any other nation, and we produce it safer and cleaner than any other nation in the world. Moreover, the USA has enough proven oil and gas reserves to meet all of its current needs at affordable prices. Do accidents happen? Yes. Should we do more to stop them? Yes. <br /><br />Is green energy cleaner? No. When you consider the environmental impacts of mining of lithium for batteries, the inability to recycle those same batteries, the coke and iron mining for steel windmill towers and solar panel racks, the barrel of oil in every windmill gear box, the birds and bats killed by wind farms, the wildlife habitat lost to millions of acres of scorched-earth solar farms, the landfills filled with unrecyclable windmill blades, the rare earth minerals used to make solar panels mined by children in third-world countries that have no environmental protections… I could go on. <br /><br />Is reducing carbon and addressing the so-called “manmade, catastrophic climate change” a worthwhile endeavor? Not when you consider the failures of the climate modeling “science” to accurately predict temperature variations. Not when you put the effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (and, yes, water vapor is the most abundant and significant greenhouse gas) in the context of solar cycles, historic natural climate variations, and the significant impacts on climate that result from naturally occurring changes in ocean currents caused by cyclical events such as El Nino, La Nina, and the Pacific Decadal Cycle. <br /><br />If you want to address environmental issues and have a strong Virginia economy (I hope you do), then you should support policies that provide “cheap” energy. Affordable energy is the essential element of a strong economy and reduced poverty, and it takes a robust economy to fund the kind of research and development that will result in the next truly clean form of energy. <br /><br />If you want a weak economy, a depressed Virginia business climate, increased poverty, more food shortages, more supply-chain issues, more inflation, and yes, even more pollution, then by all means keep pushing the dream of clean energy. But, if you truly believe in Virginia Business, then I suggest editorials and content that supports free enterprise, capitalism, and clean, abundant and affordable energy from every possible source. If you can’t do that, then consider changing the name of the magazine to “Virginia Woke.”</span>Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-2998011084229554582021-09-06T11:46:00.004-04:002021-09-06T11:46:49.650-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><b style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">The Healthcare Credibility Problem</b></div><span style="font-family: times;"><div><span style="font-family: times;"><br /></span></div><i>Editor's Note: This column was published in the American Thinker on September 4</i></span><div><span style="font-family: times;"><br />I am a strong supporter of doctors and the healthcare industry in general. I grew up with a step father who was a general practicing physician and a surgeon. He was a family doctor in the truest sense of the word. He made house calls, delivered more than 5,000 babies, bartered for fees, and often just waived the charges. He had a God-given genius for diagnosis, and he spoke to his patients in plain English, sometimes very colorful language. But my mother was always quick to remind him, “After all, you are just ‘practicing’ medicine!” <br /><br />People have a tendency to venerate doctors, and when they heroically save your life, this hero worship can be justified. Our long-time family doctor is another diagnostician extraordinaire, who also happens to be one of my best friends and hunting buddy. When he sewed up my son’s forehead on our dining room table, he too was vaulted into that hero category. <br /><br />But something has happened to the medical profession and the healthcare industry—at 15% of the US economy, it has become an industry complete with industry titans—and as the pandemic accelerated, healthcare’s credibility problem only worsened. <br /><br />Beginning in the 1990s, many doctors stopped practicing medicine on their own as the medical profession model changed from entrepreneurial to corporate medicine. As doctors and their offices began to be overwhelmed with insurance claim processing, Medicare and Medicaid compliance, malpractice suits, and medical liability insurance issues, doctors saw the hospital-affiliated-clinic model as the way to skip the bureaucratic headaches and allow the professional to focus on practicing medicine. However, corporate medicine brought corporate practices: cutting back time with patients to increase cash flow, more Medicare/Medicaid compliant procedures rather than patient-centric medicine, and outsourced billing and collection systems. <br /><br />Around the same time, pharmaceutical companies began marketing drugs directly to the consumers. Like the “Mother’s Little Helper” of the sixties, new medicines were being developed at a staggering pace. Television ads portray every drug as the new panacea for whatever ails you. In fact, consumers become so mesmerized by the truth-in-beauty scenes of a perfect life that they almost never hear the legally required disclosure of contraindications that should scare anybody who listens. “May cause an uncontrollable urge to gamble” one drug ad warned! I remember watching a football game with my 12-year-old son around 2002. One ad for a giddyup (ED) drug kept showing a guy throwing a football at a moving tire swing. As I watched the imagery, I was not paying attention and wondered out loud, “I wonder what this drug does?” My son’s reply was priceless: “I think it makes you throw the ball better.” About ten years ago, a pharmacist told me that the average customer was on 5 to 6 different prescription medicines, and several of those were to counteract the bad side effects of the other drugs. The proliferation of pharmaceuticals has even created a spin-off industry for lawyers: 1-800 BAD DRUG! <br /><br />Queue up the American Medical Association-supported Obamacare. Not only did I not get to keep my insurance, my doctor refused to see me because I had the Bronze Level health insurance plan from the federal marketplace. Doctors, who had for decades been trying to make ends meet with increasingly lower limits on what Medicare and Medicaid would pay for visits and procedures, were now being forced to accept less from the new federally underwritten health plans being forced upon millions of Americans. <br /><br />As though all these trends were not bad enough, the SARS Coronavirus-2 Covid-19 pandemic has undermined doctors’ credibility. Doctors can be found everywhere arguing about the merits of wearing a mask, social distancing, excessive handwashing, quarantine time, the efficacy of various treatments promoted by some and castigated by others, and the efficacy and risks of vaccines. Many doctors bemoan the fact that Covid is keeping people from their regular checkups and screenings. My dermatologist diagnosed seven melanoma skin cancers during the first month of the shutdown in 2020, while the number of patients she saw was about one half of her normal workload. She lamented that perhaps an equal number of melanomas went undetected during the same timeframe. People were suffering heart-attack symptoms but would not go see their doctors. Colonoscopies, mammograms, and many other cancer screenings went by the boards. While medical professionals, policymakers, and especially the media whipped up Covid fears, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932a1.htm">cases of depression</a> and <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7024e1.htm">suicides</a> increased dramatically, and now, schools are finding <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/stress-coping/parental-resources/adolescence/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fdaily-life-coping%2Fparental-resource-kit%2Fadolescence.html">multiple psychological problems</a> among returning school children. <br /><br /><a href="https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-releases-recommendations-adult-elective-surgeries-non-essential-medical-surgical-and-dental">Hospitals stopped scheduling elective procedures</a> to make room for the onslaught of Covid patients, even though elective procedures have long been the cash cow of every hospital business model. Since this threatened their financial stability, the federal government came to the rescue with cash payments for each confirmed Covid patient treated. This created a perverse <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/readiness/funding-covid.htm">economic incentive to make every patient a Covid patient</a>, regardless of their condition. There are <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm">thousands of anecdotal reports of doctors wanting to report deaths as Covid related no matter the actual cause of death</a>. <br /><br /><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/11/05/covid-why-we-will-never-eradicate-coronavirus-15132">Most medical professionals recognize that Covid will never be eliminated</a>. We hope to control it and learn to live with it. The world has an aspiration of reaching what is known as “herd immunity,” where the percentage of population that has been vaccinated or has developed natural immunity (antibodies) is high enough that the disease no longer presents a threat to humanity as a whole. The concept gives people a goal and a hope, but instead we have <a href="https://www.axios.com/fauci-goalposts-herd-immunity-c83c7500-d8f9-4960-a334-06cc03d9a220.html">arguments and changing estimates</a> among the medical and scientific communities, about what percentage constitutes herd immunity. <br /><br />We have now entered the stage where medical professionals and policymakers are proposing <a href="https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-mandates#1">vaccine mandates</a>, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/advice/2021/04/02/covid-vaccine-passport-prove-covid-19-shot-travel-vaccination-card/4839979001/">vaccine passports</a>, and a return to <a href="https://districtadministration.com/school-closings-tracker-where-covid-shut-down-schools-again/">school closures</a> and <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/workplaces-businesses/index.html">economic shutdowns</a> as the delta variant of Covid moves through the population with renewed vigor. But amid all this vaccination focus, somehow natural immunity is no longer a consideration. This is most distressing since <a href="https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19">National Institute of Health research</a> suggests that natural immunity is more robust than vaccine-induced immunity. Studies have shown that <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18716625/">survivors of the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 were immune up to 90 years later</a>. Similar studies show that <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210819113028.htm">survivors of the first SARS Coronavirus epidemic in 2003 are still immune</a>. Because of significant skepticism about the credibility of the healthcare system, it is well known that <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246772#sec004">there are possibly tens of millions of unreported Covid cases</a>, and those people likely have natural immunity. <br /><br />As Miss Marple says, “Good advice is often given, but seldom taken.” My advice to healthcare providers is to stop speaking in absolutes, recognize that there has always been healthy disagreement among medical professionals, and most of all, recognize that when people decline their well-intended advice, it is because the healthcare community has a serious credibility problem. Most of all, healthcare professionals need to remember that, after all, they are only “practicing” medicine.</span></div>Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-34034044485309177642021-09-01T10:09:00.009-04:002021-09-01T10:11:05.667-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><b style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Where is the Outrage?</span></b></div><span style="font-family: times;"><br />The headlines tell the story, and it’s not a pretty one. Climate realists, like me, are losing the climate change debate. Not because we are wrong. Factually, we win every time! But, we are losing the hearts and minds of the people because we have failed to tap into their emotions. <br /><br />The climate alarmists don’t care about the facts. They beat us down with children, like Greta Thunberg, and lecture us about self-interest and our cowardice in the face of a “mass extinction event.” They play to our natural emotions and worst fears by linking climate change to those uncontrollable things we are most afraid to face—hurricanes (lions), wildfires (tigers), and tornadoes (and bears, oh my!). <br /><br />Despite these facts: <br /></span><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: times;">Climate change models have failed to accurately predict the future global average temperature change. </span></li><li><span style="font-family: times;">There is no ideal average temperature for a world where on any given day the temperature could be -50 degrees F in one place and 120 F above zero somewhere else. (Remember, if you live by averages, you would be comfortable standing with one foot on a block of ice and the other in a fire.)</span></li><li><span style="font-family: times;">Global average temperatures have fluctuated much more and have changed much faster in the geologic past and well before humans started burning carbon-based fuels in significant quantities.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: times;">Weather patterns are much more attributable to cyclical changes in ocean currents than to climate change.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: times;">The use of oil, gas, and coal creates a significantly higher quality of life for billions of people, reduces poverty, provides abundant food supplies, and means cleaner air and water.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: times;">There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is neither caused primarily by humans nor an existential threat to mankind or any other species.</span></li></ul><span style="font-family: times;">Despite all this and more, we are gradually losing the battle for the minds of the people when it comes to the climate change debate. And we are not just losing the debate at the political level. We are losing in the board rooms, and not just the woke corporations like Amazon, Nike, Apple, or Google, but in the corporate board rooms of the utility companies, the oil & gas industry, and the manufacturers. <br /><br />Why? <br /><br />We tend to make our case using wonky science that even scientists don’t fully understand. People can’t get their heads around our rational explanations, but they darn sure understand fear of events that may affect them directly and personally. <br /><br />We tend to argue about the adverse macro-economic effects of climate change policy—the loss of millions of jobs, green energy costing trillions of dollars, and the failed goals of wealth redistribution. These effects are real and catastrophic. <br /><br />However, have you ever wondered why the voters do not support Social Security or Medicare reforms, despite the overwhelming macro-economic evidence that both systems will likely be bankrupt within the next decade? The answer is fairly simple. People make decisions based on micro-economics, not macro-economics. People will choose to protect their personal benefits over the solvency of the system—every time. <br /><br />Consider these examples of the micro-economic impacts of climate-change policies. Here in Virginia, Dominion Energy is closing coal-fired power plants in favor of solar and wind farms, and this move toward renewable energy sources will lead to a $1,000 per person per year increase in electric bills by 2030. <br /><br />Ask anybody if they are willing to pay a thousand dollars a year when it is not likely to change the average global temperature at all? This question brings the issue home, and the answer will much more often be a resounding “No!” Ask the same person if they think climate change is a threat and whether we should do something about it, and you will get many more affirmative responses. <br /><br />The Transportation & Climate Initiative, a regional collaboration of 12 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states plus DC, is proposing a 20-25% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions for the region. Their policy of choice is a “carbon [dioxide] tax.” Recently, Virginia enacted a carbon dioxide tax on utility generation, and the General Assembly will be considering one on transportation fuels that may include a 28 cent per gallon gasoline tax and a 26 cent per gallon diesel tax. Based on current mileage rates and miles driven per capita, these tax increases could cost each driver more than $1,000 per year! Once again, I can fairly easily predict the response from most people to the question of whether they are willing to pay another $1,000 per year for no material effect on the climate. <br /><br />People expect their lights and their computer to work when they flip the power switch. Talk about the potential for rolling brown-outs, or planned black-outs, so that someone else can charge their electric vehicle at the charging station built with tax dollars (ever seen a government-built gas station?), and I think you will get a predictable negative response. <br /><br />I am certain that we can come up with many more examples, but my point is this: let’s take the case against climate change down to the personal, micro-economic level. Remember the charge against George H. W. Bush: “It’s the economy stupid!” It wasn’t that Bush didn’t understand that there was a recession; it was that he failed to recognize how that recession affected people at the personal level. <br /><br />To put it another way, everything in life is political, except politics, that’s personal. When you explain how a policy threatens someone’s pocket book, you’ll get their attention.</span><br />Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-91075953784646128182018-12-18T10:17:00.002-05:002018-12-18T10:19:56.218-05:00<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: x-large;">Just Build Them Please </b></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /><i>Note: This Guest Column was published in the Farmville Herald in December 2018, and it was written in response to a number of opposition letters to the editor about three different projects being considered in the local area and region.</i><br /><br />I have been casually observing the permitting processes for several area projects—the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the Green Ridge landfill in Cumberland, and the student housing on the Martin property. Now, I feel compelled to speak out at the risk of offending certain constituencies. Can we just get on and build these projects?! <br /><br />Before you dismiss me as some minion of industry, consider my background. I was the founding treasurer of an environmental group in Wyoming that was formed to stop an oil well on the national forest near Yellowstone. When that effort failed, I watched the group succumb to cause fever in their zealous efforts to save the earth. After that I made the transformation from environmentalist to conservationist which means I consider mankind to be part of the landscape and responsible for good stewardship (wise use) of resources. <br /><br />One of the constants of life is change. Everybody wants progress, but it is the change they don’t like. Several counties in the area have for decades had an anti-growth attitude. Now, those same counties find themselves unable to provide even the most basic of public services without raising tax rates on the citizens who already struggle to get by. When a large project comes along that will create jobs and add significant value to the local tax base, a small cadre of opponents rise up and adamantly oppose the project. We have transcended from the Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) attitude to BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). <br /><br />The Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Buckingham compressor station has been rigorously analyzed and is likely the most thoroughly vetted pipeline in American history. Ironically, the Buckingham citizens fighting the new pipeline have been living near an existing pipeline that has operated for decades without any significant impacts. According to the US Energy Information Administration, there are 210 different major pipeline systems that comprise about 1.5 million miles of pipe in the USA. There are another 1.5 million miles of consumer gas distribution lines in America. Serious pipeline accidents (those accidents that result in fatality or injury requiring hospitalization) have ranged from 70 per year in 1998 to 24 in 2017. Nothing in life can be accident free, but overall natural gas pipelines are extremely safe. Regarding the opponent’s claims about the health effects of emissions from the compressor station, perhaps some research about the emissions from wood stoves used extensively in the area, including formaldehyde and other aldehydes, would be enlightening. <br /><br />The Green Ridge landfill in Cumberland will be a state-of-the-art facility that will handle garbage from around the region, but will also serve the needs of Cumberland residents. About half of the 1,144 acre site will be buffer between the working part of the landfill and its neighbors. In a recent 50 Years Ago Today section of the Farmville Herald, I read about the 200 informal dumps alongside roads in Prince Edward. The county supervisors’ solution back then was to build five unlined, open-trench dump sites. I believe worrying about garbage being processed and disposed of in a modern, highly regulated facility is misplaced fear. And, as for the truck traffic, I heard the same fears expressed about the Luck Stone facility on US 460 west of Farmville. I drive that road almost daily. I have yet to even be slowed down by trucks entering or leaving the site, and to my knowledge, there has not been a single accident associated with that truck traffic. <br /><br />Lastly, I believe the Martins should be allowed to build student housing on the corner of Oak and High Streets. I can’t think of a more suitable location for student housing than right across the street from Longwood. For most Americans, their homes are their most significant asset and source of retirement. I believe it is wrong to deny the Martins their opportunity to divest of a costly old home and finance their golden years. Imagine you’re playing Monopoly. You’re fortunate enough to acquire Boardwalk and Park Place. You hold on to it, build up some cash, and when you go to put a hotel on your properties, suddenly the rules are changed, and you are denied. Regarding the historic district designation, all old homes are not historically significant. <br /><br />We can grow our economy, keep our community character, preserve our history, and protect our environment. This is not a zero sum game. The demand for affordable energy is increasing, especially if we are going to provide jobs for our citizens. The volume of garbage produced every day is growing, and we need places to properly dispose of it in the most environmentally sound way. And, we need housing to accommodate our growing university and student body, and right across the street from Longwood is the most logical place for that to happen. So, in the broader interest of the region and its people, can we please just build these projects?</span>Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-21717297568682876002018-12-18T10:12:00.002-05:002018-12-18T10:25:36.146-05:00<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Musings of a Climate-Change Skeptic </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Note: This column was published in the Farmville Herald in August 2018, in response to a letter to the editor. Four different Longwood University professors responded to my assertions in two subsequent Guest Columns to which I wrote a rebuttal.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I must respond to a recent LTE regarding climate change. By way of background, I graduated from UC San Diego’s Revelle College with a degree in biology and economics, so I have a science background. Moreover, I have over 30 years of conservation and environmental policy experience at the federal and state levels in the legislative and executive branches. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">One of the first things you learn as a policymaker is that science informs policy; it does not establish policy. The reasons are simple. First, science is usually narrowly focused on a specific issue or challenge while policy has broad-based implications and impacts on a much wider spectrum of disciplines including science, economics, sociology, and governance. Second, science is wildly inconsistent, and all too often, scientists have become political advocates with pre-determined outcomes driving their scientific processes. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In a time when we hear daily about “scientific” studies—mostly statistical correlations with no determination of cause and effect—that suggest conclusions such as “90% of women who eat chocolate during pregnancy have happier children,” we should be skeptical. My point is that “science” is a term that is thrown around flippantly in an attempt to discredit anyone who has the temerity to disagree. More importantly, scientists by nature are skeptical, and the notion that there is consensus about any scientific theory is ludicrous. Science is never “done.” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Regarding climate change, or more accurately anthropogenic catastrophic global warming, here are some things to consider. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming and mankind is putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">CO2 makes up 6% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and H2O (water vapors) makes up 90%. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">There is no “ideal” average global temperature and an increase of 2-3 Fahrenheit over 100 years is not significant in a world where on any given day some place is -40 F and another is 120 F. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Cold is much more dangerous to all life forms and kills more people each year than heat. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been as much as 10-20 times higher during nearly every other geologic period of the earth. The atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 were near record lows. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">CO2 is plant food—essential to all vegetative growth—and higher CO2 levels have resulted in more plant growth and crop production around the globe. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Global temperature has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850), but have not reached the temperatures seen during the Medieval Warming Period—when Vikings were growing grapes in Greenland—or those of the Roman Warming Period. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Sea levels have been rising for centuries, but the rate of sea level rise has declined in recent decades. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The frequency and severity of droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and flooding are not increasing, but the 24/7 media cycle makes every event “newsworthy.” </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">There is no evidence that the acidity of the oceans is increasing, but the acidity of oceans does vary widely around the world. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Suggesting that developing countries go without carbon-based energy in the form of electricity condemns the world’s poor to starvation, food poisoning, diseases, and poverty. It is the modern-day equivalent of “Let them eat cake.” </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Without abundant and affordable electricity that can only be provided by fossil fuels, billions of people around the world will continue to cook and heat by burning wood and dung, and as a result, millions of people will continue to die each year from the indoor pollution caused by wood and dung smoke. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">According to the “climate change experts,” spending (redistributing) a trillion dollars a year on climate change policies will only reduce the increase in global temperature over 100 years by a fraction of a degree. </span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">There are bigger and more important issues facing humanity, and there are ways to address them that will achieve the desired outcomes. Worrying about climate change and whatever, if any, role humans may have in it is tantamount to encountering a grizzly bear and wondering when you last had your teeth cleaned by the dentist.</span>Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-39648254965754931752017-11-08T13:13:00.004-05:002017-11-08T13:14:16.963-05:00<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">A
Message to ALL Republicans</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">This
message is to ALL Republicans—establishment, fiscal conservatives, RINO, social
conservatives, moderates, ultra-conservative, Trumpers, and never Trumpers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">On
November 7<sup>th</sup>, 2017, Virginia’s political complexion changed from
purple to blue. On November 8<sup>th</sup>, all the Monday-morning quarterbacks
were out in force with full-throated criticism of Ed Gillespie. I am not going
to counter the critics except to say that Virginia ran a rock-hard conservative
for Governor in 2013, and we came up short in that election too.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">To
all the arm-chair quarterbacks out there, instead of picking on the quarterback—and
forgive me while I torture the football metaphor—we should be trying to figure
out why the Republican Team can’t win games (elections). Politics, like
football, is a team sport. And, politics, like football, is a full-contact
sport. To put check marks in the win column, we all must subordinate our
personal agendas to the team game plan. If we all play for individual records,
we may make it to the Hall of Fame, but we will never get to the Super Bowl.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">If
you want to wins games (elections), here are some football basics to live your
political life by:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">#1:
If your favorite quarterback (candidate) doesn’t get the starting job
(nomination), suck it up and start playing for the starter. As the old saying
goes, “You gotta dance with the girl who brung ya.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">#2:
If the starting quarterback doesn’t throw well, but can run the ball, then
adjust your play to maximize your QB’s effectiveness.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">#3:
No quarterback can win games if the linemen don’t block, the running backs
fumble, or the receivers don’t run their routes as planned.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">#4:
No quarterback can win games if the defense can’t stop the other team from
scoring or controlling the ball.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">#5:
You will never win any games if you don’t show up at the field on game day to
play (vote).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">#6:
Sometimes the other team’s players are bigger (population), stronger (money),
and faster (cleaver). You will have losses on the field and in life. Winners
pick themselves up, don’t pout or cry, and get back to the hard work of learning
from their mistakes and becoming better.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">If
Republicans want to win, then let’s start to act like were on the same team, improve
our skills, work out, come to practices, show up on game day, act like we want
to win, play our hearts out, and win one for the Gipper.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-14149532617713304162016-02-08T14:06:00.001-05:002016-02-08T14:37:14.767-05:00On Defeat<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><strong>On Defeat<o:p></o:p></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">I have seen and heard a lot of comments about Cam Newton’s
post-Super Bowl Press Conference. Most people have characterized his press
conference as “disappointing,” “inappropriate,” “rude,” or “revealing.”<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Please allow me to offer an alternative view. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">There is an old saying, “Don’t judge a person until you have
walked a mile in their shoes.” Precious view of us have ever even worn cleats
in a real football game, let alone in the NFL, and even fewer have ever run a
“mile” in the Super Bowl. I am not sure there is any greater high or low in
sports than winning or losing the Super Bowl, with the possible exception of
competing in the Olympics. Time and time again, it has been the team that is
the most emotionally prepared for the Super Bowl that wins. Teams that have
been there before are often assumed to have an advantage. Butterflies in the
first quarter have dictated the outcome more often than not. Can anybody forget
the snap whizzing by Peyton Manning’s head for the opening play two years ago?
If there is anything worse than having a terrible season in the NFL, it is
going to the Super Bowl and losing. I have been excited to see my San Diego
Chargers get to the playoffs for several seasons, but, in the back of my mind,
I knew they did not have what it takes to win the big one. Secretly, I was often
relieved when they did not make it. The one time the Chargers made it to the
big dance, they got beat badly—so badly I have erased the experience from my
head.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">So, what’s my point? Cam Newton’s disappointment—however
much it was in itself disappointing—is certainly understandable. Especially,
after his team went 17-1 in the regular season, dominated the playoffs, and he
earns the MVP award. It had to be a crushing defeat.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">When Fritz was wrestling, I took a great interest in the
sport. A sport his great grandfather excelled in, but I had aggressively
avoided when I saw a friend get a nasty case of cauliflower ear. I read a story
about wrestling from an Iowa wrestling coach, and, yes, Iowa is the wrestling
capital of America. He talked about the grueling conditioning required, the
challenges of making weight, and then having to compete while dehydrated and
with little or no energy reserves. He talked about the fact that teams could
always comfort each other in loss, or one could attribute a loss to another
teammate’s failure, but in wrestling (and other single player sports) losing
was a failure each competitor owns singularly. Moreover, when you lose a
wrestling match, it is one of the most humiliating forms of defeat that the sporting
world has to offer. Think about it. In the natural world, how do predators
display dominance over their prey and even their own family group? They roll
their opponent over on to their backs, hold them down until the opponent
submits—they pin their opponent. You lose a wrestling match by either getting
pinned, or rolled over onto your back so many times the opponent out scores
you. As Fritz used to say when he lost, “I got owned.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Well, Cam Newton got owned in Super Bowl 50. No two ways
about it. He got sacked 6 times, had the ball wrenched from his hands leading
to a touchdown, he got hit and thrown to the ground many more times than I
could count. It was like no other game he played this year, and it was humiliating.
It would be for anyone. And for the record, he is certainly not the first Super
Bowl competitor to look and act defeated after a humbling experience like that.
<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The Bible says, “To whom much is given, much is expected.”
(Luke 12:48) Cam Newton certainly could have shown more grace in defeat. But,
honestly, how many of us ever do that? To his credit, he acknowledged that
Denver out played them, played better than them, that the Panthers missed
opportunities, had their chances, and turned the ball over too many times. Then
he left abruptly to lick his wounds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">I learned, while I could easily share in Fritz’s wrestling
victories with him, he needed time and to be alone to process his losses—he
needed to lick his wounds. If I left him alone, he would quickly rebound; if I
pressed the issue, his defeat would get the better of him. Fritz and I both
learned from those experiences.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Politics has much in common with sports when it comes to handling
losses. I have been a political operative for 30 years. I have managed ballot
initiatives, helped elect State Reps, State Senators, three U.S. Congressmen, a
U.S. Senator, and even a U.S. President, but I have never put my name on the
ballot. As an operative, I could rationalize a defeat by pointing to the candidate’s
shortcomings or errors they committed. When you put your name on the ballot,
you have only the mirror to gaze at when you lose. And, ironically, it seems
that Monday-Morning Quarterbacks are more prevalent in politics than football.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">It can be said that adversity is a great teacher. It can
make you stronger, or it can crush you. It builds character, or reveals it. It
can produce humility, or it can be the fall that goes before a haughty spirit
(it is destruction that goes before pride) (Pro. 16:18). Wisdom is a gift from
God, but unfortunately, most of us have to get knocked down a notch or two
before our pride gives way to humility before God, and we actually ask for the
wisdom that God gives liberally (James 1:5). Cam Newton got knocked down more
notches last night that many of us have likely experienced in a lifetime. His
ultimate response to adversity will be played out over the coming months and
next season. His mother raised him to know God, and God has certainly blessed
him with tremendous gifts. I believe and hope he will react more appropriately
to adversity. In the meantime, I can allow some forbearance for his response
last night because I have some empathy for what he experienced. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">FYI: Here is a video of Fritz's Senior Year Wrestling Highlights, and, yes, they are all wins because that's what highlights are! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><o:p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SF8vjSwNOfA" target="_blank">Fritz Senior Year Wrestling Highlights 07-07</a></o:p></span><br />
<o:p></o:p></span>Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-45001173234002827182012-12-16T16:09:00.001-05:002012-12-20T19:52:37.493-05:00What the Village Took by L. P. Hoffman<em>L. P. Hoffman wrote this in 2006, not long after the Columbine, CO, shooting. I believe this message is even more appropriate in light of the recent events in Newtown, CT. Read about <a href="http://www.lphoffman.com/" target="_blank">L. P. Hoffman</a>. Buy L. P. Hoffman <a href="http://www.hopespringsmedia.com/" target="_blank">books</a>.</em><br />
<em>--The Editor</em><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;"><em>What the Village Took</em> by L. P. Hoffman</span></strong><br />
(c) 2006<br />
<br />
Silence shrouded the building. It was a surreal and deep silence, hollow and unnerving. Soon, very soon along these sterile corridors, the stillness would be swallowed by the noisy clamor of the day, yet this was to be no ordinary day. <br />
<br />
In the shadows, two men stood as tall and motionless as statues. At their feet, shafts of dawning light spilled through open classroom doors to glimmer upon the random tile patterns there. <br />
<br />
The men waited. They both appeared powerful, yet agile. Their faces reflected deep and profound sadness. <br />
<br />
The taller, older man turned to the younger. “It won’t be long now.” His words conveyed the seriousness of the occasion. <br />
<br />
The younger nodded. “May I…?” he spoke with trepidation. “Would it be presumptuous of me to ask?” <br />
<br />
His companion smiled faintly, gently then reached out to reassure his friend. “I will show you. Then you will understand.” <br />
<br />
Before them, a scroll appeared and came alive with a moving view of a classroom. “All lifestyles are good,” the teacher explained. “Exploring human sexuality is only natural. She spoke of base instinct as if they were pure and clean and mankind as if he were no different than an ape. The teacher mocked God’s laws by calling them outdated and by doing so, cast restraints aside. <br />
<br />
The young man turned to the elder. “There is a way that seems right to a man but the end of it is death.” He turned his gaze back to the scroll as it changed to a computer lab. At a desk in the corner, a bored teacher thumbed through a magazine while a cluster of boys feasted their eyes and hearts upon internet pornography. At another computer a few feet away, a loner quickly jotted down a recipe for bombs then clicked off, while two female classmates typed the words “witchcraft” into the search engine and then printed the initiation rites along with incantations. <br />
<br />
“Perversion,” the older man whispered as the scene changed again to the High School Auditorium where students gathered to hear an address. <br />
<br />
The speaker rose. “We have called an assembled today to talk about abuse. We hope to arm you with the knowledge that will equip you to recognize and stand against abuse wherever you may find it. We hope these tools will not only empower you but also give you the courage to come forward and seek help. <br />
<br />
He spoke of the tyranny of control that parents have inflicted on their young. He cited the examples of real and frightening cases then quickly explained that even a parent’s attempt to restrain a teenager by the arm could be considered abuse. “If it feels like abuse, it probably is.” <br />
<br />
Nestled among the crowd, a pimply sophomore boy crossed his arms smugly. His thoughts turned to the fight he’d had with his mother that morning. Anger festered and churned beneath his surface. He was fed up with the nagging. “Do your homework. Clean your room!” Their curfew and their rules…. It was more than he could take. The teenager smiled at the possibilities. <br />
<br />
The speaker went on to talk about sexual harassment and an excited ripple rolled through the hearts of the scorned and spiteful. <br />
<br />
The seeds of rebellion had been planted. A weapon had been forged and placed naively into young and turbulent hands. <br />
<br />
“You could be a victim and not even realize it,” the speaker cooed. “If you come to us, we will listen. We will help.” <br />
<br />
The older man turned to his companion. “This delusion has spread like a virus. Many innocents have suffered because of false accusations.” For a split second, they could both feel the pain of the wounded—those torn and devastated by a system gone awry. Lives and reputations have been ruined. Parents have been stripped of rights. Children have been snared in a web of endless bureaucracy. <br />
<br />
The younger man looked away for a brief moment. It was all too much for his righteous eyes to take in. The air was thick with decay—the stench of bondage and its fruit. <br />
<br />
“Will you see more?” the elder asked. <br />
<br />
The younger one nodded and turned once more to face the scroll. <br />
<br />
In another classroom, a woman spoke of nature and her wonders. “We are all divine,” she explained. “Because divinity is in all creation and we are a part of her. The earth is our mother, a living-breathing organism. She is worthy of all honor.” <br />
<br />
A puff of exasperation escaped the younger man lips. “It’s idolatry!” <br />
<br />
“Yes. They are teaching the young to serve the creature, rather than the creator.” <br />
<br />
The scroll’s scene changed to the principal’s office. “Zero Tolerance,” he said with pride. “We have a Zero Tolerance policy on drugs and violence.” <br />
<br />
“The principal has never walked through this place with eyes to see,” the older man explained. “For if he had, he would have seen that tolerance was the very thing being taught in these classrooms. They teach that truth is not absolute and that one person’s reality may be different from another’s. Behind the guise of ‘freedom of education,’ anarchy has replaced order and chaos is exalted. The spirit of lawlessness is already at work in the world.” With that, the scroll rolled up and disappeared. <br />
<br />
Overhead, a long florescent bulb flickered on with a hum and then another as synthetic light filled the corridor. “We don’t have long to wait now,” the older man cautioned. <br />
<br />
A teacher was the first to arrive. She was a plain looking woman with medium brown hair pulled back with a ribbon. Her clothes were outdated and simple. <br />
<br />
“Mrs. Jacobs, we will call her Sarah,” the older man said with a nod in her direction. “She is one of the reasons we have come. This one is a quiet but powerful witness. Sarah is not very popular around here,” he said. “The students make sport of her behind her back and the administration watches her closely. They are worried she may share her beliefs.” He smiled. “But her life has been a witness and there is no rule against that. She has endured suffering and her love has not grown cold. Sarah Jacobs prays for each one by name.” <br />
<br />
Soon, other teachers began to trickle in along with early students. In a short time, the hallways echoed with the sounds of slamming lockers and newsy murmurs, though no one seemed to notice the two men who stood among them. <br />
<br />
Quietly, the visitors watched as waves of morning activity ebbed and flowed. Then, suddenly, the air grew thick with a mist of darkness. Evil had arrived. At the end of the long hall, a teenage boy stood as if looking for someone. His hair was shaggy, but not to long. A loose strand fell across his sweaty brow. Below, his eyes darted nervously, to and fro. Slowly, deliberately, the young man slid his heavy backpack from his shoulder and unzipped it. His hand sunk deep into its depths and it surfaced again with a gun. <br />
<br />
The younger man let out a gasp. “Can we stop this?” <br />
<br />
“Mankind has been given free will.” The older man shook his head solemnly. “We cannot interfere.” <br />
<br />
As the boy held the shining weapon in his hand, a strange demented smile spread across his thin lips. “Soon they will all know,” he muttered, “just what I think of them. They will all be sorry.” <br />
<br />
“And he is right. They will say it wasn’t his fault,” the elder explained. “They will say the boy was the product of his environment, that he had a rough life. His mother worked long hours. His father left when he was young. They will pity the boy, saying he was depressed and knew rejection. They will say that he was a victim too.” <br />
<br />
“While all this may be true, don’t they know that this young man, like all the rest, will one day stand accountable before God?” the younger one asked. <br />
<br />
A shriek sliced through the morning bustle and banter. “He’s got a gun!” Pandemonium exploded like a cannonball down the corridor and frightened teens scrambled for safety. <br />
<br />
This seemed to please the teenage boy. He leveled his pistol and walked forward with icy determination. The first bullet slammed into the wall inches from a young man’s head. He fired again, grazing the arm of a fleeing athlete. Youth scrambled for refuge as fear and panic ricocheted throughout the school. <br />
<br />
The gun-totting boy stopped cold. His hollow eyes locked onto a beautiful teenage girl as she cowered behind the shelter of her locker. Jennifer was one of the popular ones who’d never given him the time of day. He raised the weapon and an eternity seemed to pass as his finger slowly squeezed the trigger. Then, just before the explosion, a schoolmate suddenly dove to take the bullet. He fell in a crumpled heap as the terrified girl bolted away to safety. <br />
<br />
“This is Benjamin, the other reason we have been called here today.” The elder angel knelt beside the boy as he lay dying. “Benjamin, you have been a shining light in this place for you were not ashamed of the gospel.” He touched the boy with gentle hands and whispered words to blanket him in peace. “Greater love knows no man, than he who lays his life down for another.” <br />
<br />
The predator felt charged with power and control as he marched through the school looking for prey. “He would soon be famous,” he told himself. Through narrow radar eyes, he searched for movement, his senses honed by the scent of fear. Then, his march stopped short. <br />
<br />
Mrs. Jacobs had stepped into his path. She stood like a sentinel against the boy’s advance “Go no further,” she said. “Kyle, put the gun down.” Inside, Sarah was terrified but she didn’t let it show. <br />
<br />
The teenager’s mouth twisted in contempt. “Who’s going to make me?” Slowly, Mrs. Jacobs approached—her hand extended. “Let me have the gun.” The teacher’s firm words conveyed authority and power. Her seasoned eyes betrayed no hint of intimidation. <br />
<br />
A tear welled briefly in the boy’s gaze, then as suddenly as it surfaced, it shrank back into darkness. He leveled the gun and fired once more before turning the weapon upon himself. <br />
<br />
Deafening silence filled the corridor. All was still but all was not well. <br />
<br />
Moments passed in silent waiting and then the angels rose with their precious cargo in their arms. <br />
<br />
“This day, two shining lights have been extinguished from this school, but there would be others to rise up in their place.” As the elder spoke, a joyous chorus rang in the heavens. For two of God’s beloved were coming home—victorious and whole. <br />
<br />
<em>What the Village Took</em> by L. P. Hoffman, (c) 2006Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-49915344683159255842011-04-09T09:14:00.000-04:002011-04-09T09:14:44.876-04:00Thank You for the OpportunityIn September 2007, I started an internet blog called Talk It Up America, and at that time I said, “I have created this blog—www.TalkItUpAmerica.com—to post news consistent with Philippians 4:8.<br />
<br />
For those of you who do not have a Bible handy, Philippians 4:8 says in the New King James Version, “Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.”<br />
<br />
In September 2008, the <a href="http://farmvilleherald.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=119&TM=30084.68">Farmville Herald </a>began publishing my column every other week.<br />
<br />
I have enjoyed writing these columns because I believe in the full discourse that must precede any thoughtful decision about the significant issues and challenges that face America today. Naturally, I wanted to present a conservative point of view. But, more than anything else, I strove to ensure that my readers understood that these are complex problems we are up against. Though many people want a simple solution, those are elusive at best and often just wrong. I tried to not just be a critic of others. I always attempted to not make any issue a personal one. I believe that we have an obligation to fully vet and debate policies, but not to carry out character assassinations. And, while I often presented the opposing view of a particular policy, I always would also strive to present an alternative approach to resolving the issue. I firmly believe that you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.<br />
<br />
I clearly have a strong political point of view and I am not ashamed for having presented a conservative viewpoint of today’s issues. I, for one, do not believe “politics” should be a pejorative term. In fact, I have come to learn that everything in life is political, except politics, that is personal. I consider running for and holding public office to be the highest secular calling an individual may pursue. I hold those in political offices in high regard even when I disagree with their politics or policies. If we lose sight of the value of free and civil political discourse and respect for the elected office, we risk losing our democratic form of government.<br />
<br />
Many of you know that I have also been politically active in the Prince Edward County Republican Party, among other local volunteer activities, and I headed up the Prince Edward County campaign to elect <a href="http://www.roberthurtforcongress.com/">Robert Hurt </a>as the Representative for Virginia’s 5th Congressional District.<br />
<br />
Because of my political and public service experience, I was recently appointed by Representative Hurt be his Farmville Field Office Director. I am honored to be going to work for <a href="http://hurt.house.gov">Robert Hurt</a>. His thoughtful and considerate approach to the issues, his desire to serve all of the people of the 5th District, and his core beliefs in liberty, individual rights, and free-market solutions to problems make working for Congressman Hurt a natural and easy decision for me.<br />
<br />
Quite naturally as well, this means that I will no longer be writing a column for the Farmville Herald or TalkItUpAmerica.com. My new job is not to convey my ideas, but rather to listen to the people of the Southside, provide appropriate assistance whenever possible, and to communicate constituent views to Representative Hurt. <br />
<br />
I have enjoyed writing these columns and it has been a rewarding experience. Many of you have taken the time to let me know how much you like my writing and agree with my positions on the issues. A few have challenged me on the issues and I have enjoyed those discourses as well. Thank you for reading my column and your support. <br />
<br />
I also look forward to representing Robert Hurt and serving all of his constituents. I will be available to visit with anyone about issues pertaining to the federal government, whether it is a personal matter that requires the Congressman’s assistance or you want to communicate your views on a larger policy direction for the federal government.<br />
<br />
As I have tried to do throughout my career and in this column for the past two years, I will perform my new duties consistent with Philippians 4:8 and my personal mission statement. “I believe that my gifts come from God and that I am called to use those gifts to serve people by helping them, listening to hear their needs, assimilating and distilling facts that relate to their needs and the issues, and advocating in the public forum to bring forth solutions that benefit the whole by applying the principles of honesty, concern, fair play, respect, discernment, integrity and trust.”<br />
<br />
It is with some regret that I stop writing these periodic columns, but it is for good reason that I do so. In the mean time, thank you for the opportunity and I look forward to a different, but equally important, kind of service.Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-68906728245076968292011-03-25T20:50:00.002-04:002011-03-25T20:50:43.906-04:00Up like a rocket; down like a parachuteThere is something exciting about watching a Space Shuttle launch. The acceleration is incredible, especially when you consider the gross weight of the space craft to be about 4.5 million pounds. Within seconds of launch the shuttle is going 100 mph, 1,000 mph after one minute, and in a little over seven minutes, the craft is pushing 18,000 mph! But, have you noticed when it is landing, the Space Shuttle is going barely more than 200 mph. Going up is fast, but coming down is always slow.<br />
<br />
Of course, the physics of putting large bodies into orbit around the earth requires nothing less than spectacular acceleration. The aerodynamics and physics of returning to earth safely demand that the vehicle slowly decelerate over a longer time to avoid burning up or breaking up upon touch down. <br />
<br />
Even though economics is not a physical science per se, I have observed over the years that the same physical laws of space travel seem to apply to certain economic trends. Have you ever noticed how quickly interest rates rise during uncertain times only to slowly come back down long after the crisis is over? The stock market can “crash” in a day, but may take years to recover from that single event. In recent years, the price of gasoline has shot up like a rocket on news of a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, or political upheaval in the Middle East. However, even though the hurricane may pass by with little or no impact on the supplies, or the interruption of oil deliveries in the Middle East may not be significant, the price of gasoline can take months to come back down to pre-event levels. It is as though the prices ride a rocket up and take a parachute back down.<br />
<br />
The explanations for this phenomenon are plentiful and I am sure your email inbox has been inundated with plenty of speculation, castigation, and a few suggested remedies during the recent jump in gasoline prices. I believe some explanations and remedies have more merit than others.<br />
<br />
There is one very important thing that makes gasoline at the pump unique among the thousands of products Americans buy on a daily basis. Retail gasoline is the only product that posts its price in one-foot-tall letters that can be read from one-half mile away or more. As a result everyone knows what a gallon of gas costs even though most people could not tell you what they last paid for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread. <br />
<br />
I suppose posting gasoline prices in big numbers keeps the stations competitive. After all, how many of us have driven until our tanks were nearly empty until we found that station that was two cents a gallon cheaper. Yep, we showed them; nearly running out of gas to save ourselves 30 to 40 cents on a single $45 to $60 tank full!<br />
<br />
If displaying gasoline prices for all to see encourages competition, it could also be said that it makes collusion easier as well. Under anti-trust laws in the United States, collusion among suppliers or retailers to set prices for their products is expressly forbidden. But, if the gas-station operator doesn’t even have to leave his store to see what the competition is charging across the street, then it is difficult for any prosecutor to make the case that the station owners met in secret to set their prices.<br />
<br />
Imagine for a moment you are a gasoline retailer. Your average gross profit on gasoline is about seven cents a gallon. If you put yourself in their position, you would probably understand that it is less likely to be a conspiracy and more often just a case of business survival. When one station sees another raise their price a couple of cents a gallon, they all quickly follow suit. And it is certainly not in any operator’s best interest to be the first to drop the price when supply costs go down. Consider this: if your local gas station operator is making so much money selling gasoline, why do gasoline retailers spend so much time trying to get you into their store to buy things you can get at a hundred other locations? Cheap gasoline is a pricing theory called a “loss leader” that is intended to get you in the store to buy other more profitable products. Many a gasoline retailer has gone bankrupt trying to use gasoline as a loss leader.<br />
<br />
At the other end of the supply-line spectrum is the price of a barrel of crude oil. You get the price of crude oil reported in the media every evening along with the daily stock market results. However, what makes the news is not the cost of the oil being delivered to refineries today, but rather it is the price expected to be paid for oil at some point in the future. When events cause speculation to drive the future price of oil up, it inevitably results in journalists prognosticating that the price of gasoline at the pump will be going up soon. With the consumers psychologically prepared for the increase, it is now logical for suppliers and retailers to go ahead and raise the price of a gallon of gas. <br />
<br />
The last and perhaps the most significant factor that affects the price of gasoline here in the United States is that we are grossly under capacity for refining oil into gasoline and other products. Many small refineries have shut down over the years as their processing capacity made it uneconomical to bring them up to current environmental standards. At the same time, stringent environmental standards and the not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) syndrome has resulted is fewer new refineries coming online. Meanwhile, gasoline consumption has increased, and during the summer, many states and even some municipalities require specially blended fuels to reduce emissions. As refineries annually transition from making heating oil to ramping up to meet summer gasoline demand, they must stop production to retool their facilities. This leads to constrained supplies and the annual price increase that usually peaks around Memorial Day. The rest of the summer pricing remains relatively high because of increased driving and a constant cycle of shutting down refineries to adjust for the unique summer blends required by different cities and states. Add to that one or two hurricanes that may temporarily shut down gulf coast oil production and refineries and we can see a drop in supply with a corresponding increase in the price at the pump.<br />
<br />
The reality is the supply and demand for energy, especially gasoline, is very volatile. There are many reasons why the price of gasoline at the pump may change—some are better explained than others. Nonetheless, the cost of gasoline does fluctuate often and can rise quickly. If you are frustrated about recent increases, and many of us are, don’t punish your neighbor who happens to be in the gasoline business. Don’t bother trying to boycott the big oil companies; they make just as much money selling cheaper products as they do selling expensive stuff. If you want to bring about real and positive change that will help the price situation at the pump, call your Representative and Senators. Tell them we need streamlined permitting for new refineries. We need more of every kind of energy. We should stop the ban on deepwater drilling and we should open more offshore areas to exploration. We should not let the EPA regulate green-house gases and implement a de facto energy tax. And, we need more oil, coal, natural gas, oil shale, tar sands, etc., developed in Alaska and the Mainland USA. Tell them we need to drill here, drill now, and pay less!Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-3604769041314499242011-03-15T13:36:00.000-04:002011-03-15T13:36:02.860-04:00Most Common Side EffectsIn the last decade, there has been an exponential increase in the amount of advertising for prescription pharmaceutical medicines and a corresponding increase in prescription drug consumption. This is partly the result of a significant change in the way drug companies are marketing their products. Back in the day, pharmaceutical companies sent drug reps out to visit doctors and hospitals. They generally came bearing gifts—radios, clocks, sometimes even television sets. But, more importantly, they provided technical information about what their drug could do for the patients and what side affects might occur. They answered questions and gave medical professionals all the information they needed to make qualified medical decisions about what, if any, drug would best address the illness the patient presented.<br />
<br />
The new model for marketing drugs has the pharmaceutical companies skipping right over the medical professionals and going to the consumer directly. Often times, even after seeing an ad several times, the consumer may not know what illness the medicine is intended to treat. But, it sure sounds good. Maybe I better ask my doctor if that drug is right for me.<br />
<br />
I remember watching NFL football with my 12 year old son years ago. One of these drug ads kept appearing that depicted a middle-aged man throwing a football through a tire swing. The audio message was intentionally vague, and being naïve, I missed all the phallic symbolism that was meant to convey the message that this was the newest of what a friend of mine called “giddy-up drugs.” Stupid me! I turned to my son and asked him what he thought that drug is supposed to do. His response was priceless, “I think it makes him throw the ball better.”<br />
<br />
The point is these messages about sophisticated drugs are dumbed down and intended to make us all think we can’t live without these medicines. We are not sure what they do, but that person sure looks happier. And who doesn’t want more control over their health care decisions? I believe we should all assume more responsibility for our physical and emotional well being, but that does not make us trained and qualified medical diagnosticians. <br />
<br />
Of course, to ensure that as an informed consumer we all make the right medical choices, we are told about all the possible side affects of the particular drug we are being sold at the moment. Have you listened closely to some of the contraindications of these wonder-working medicines? Here are a few snippets of the choicest “Most Common Side Effects”:<br />
• “chest pain; confusion; fainting; fast or irregular heartbeat”<br />
• “new or worsening mental or mood problems”<br />
• “sudden, severe dizziness or vomiting; slurred speech; uncontrolled muscle movement; unusual weakness or tiredness”<br />
• “suicidal thoughts or actions”<br />
• “abnormal thinking; behavior changes”<br />
• “hallucinations; memory loss; new or worsening agitation, panic attacks, aggressiveness, impulsiveness, irritability, hostility, exaggerated feeling of well-being”<br />
• “decreased sexual desire or ability” (Don’t worry; there are plenty of other drugs that counteract this symptom)<br />
• “red, swollen, blistered, or peeling skin; ringing in the ears; seizures”<br />
• “sudden decrease or loss of hearing; sudden decrease or loss of vision in one or both eyes”<br />
• and, my all time favorite, “sudden urges to gamble”<br />
<br />
The pharmaceutical industry is big business, and to be fair, they have developed some really valuable medicines that treat previously untreatable conditions. Medical care has improved thanks in part due to research and development by drug companies. Research and development is expensive and the testing and application process to get Food and Drug Administration approvals cost a lot of money as well. As a result, some of the newest and best drugs are also very expensive as the industry prices their product to recover their investment before the patent runs out and cheaper generic versions of the drug come on the market.<br />
<br />
Prescription drug use in America is up—way up. We cannot discount the impact this has had on the cost of delivering health care services in this country. Over the past ten years, the percentage of Americans who have taken at least one prescription drug in the past month has increased from 44% to 48%. The use of two or more drugs increased from 25% to 31%. The percentage of Americans using five or more drugs per month increased from 6% to 11%. In 2007-2008, 20% of children and 90% of older Americans reported using at least one prescription drug in the past month.<br />
<br />
Prime time television ads rates vary widely from $40,000 to $400,000 per ad. Full-page color ads in a popular men’s magazine can cost more than $70,000, and by the time the drug company buys the extra page and a half to print all the disclaimers in fine print, a $175,000 per month per magazine budget is not out of the question. It doesn’t take rocket science to see that drug companies are spending a lot of money to get you to “ask your doctor” about their latest wonder pill. <br />
<br />
If you have followed my columns over the last few years, you know that I am a free-enterprise advocate. I favor market solutions over government regulation. Although the government has historically banned alcohol and tobacco ads, I am not suggesting that prescription drug ads be banned. Besides, the government has no nexus that would empower it to ban advertising in the print media or on cable and satellite television.<br />
<br />
However, I do wonder about the ethics of marketing prescription drugs directly to the consumer. I do believe it significantly contributes to the escalating use of prescription drugs and the spiraling cost of providing health care. And, perhaps I am old fashioned, but shouldn’t we all leave the decision to prescribe or not prescribe drugs to the medical professionals and not the consumers. There are certainly a number of circumstances that warrant prescription drug use and I am neither anti-medicine nor anti-drug industry. But, I wonder if it is really necessary or in our best interest to take “Mother’s little helper” for every perceived problem we have in life. Maybe we would all be better off if we took charge of our own physical and emotional well being. As consumers we can exert market changing power through our consumption patterns. We can all reconsider our prescription drug use, and through the free market, we can have a positive impact on our physical, emotional, and financial well being and help bring down the cost of health care in America. As Nancy Reagan said about illegal drug use, “Just say ‘No.’”Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-70358979067514267032011-02-21T13:39:00.000-05:002011-02-21T13:39:21.707-05:00Whose Ox will get Gored?President Obama established the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform in February 2010. In December 2010, the Commission, co-chaired by former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former US Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, released its report. The report included a comprehensive set of recommendations all designed to help the United States address its growing deficit problems and the mounting national debt. But, most controversial of all recommendations, the Commission had the temerity to suggest that, unless they are fixed soon, entitlement programs such as the Social Security System are doomed to financial failure.<br />
<br />
In his usual fire-brand style of down home wit and brazen Western honesty, Senator Alan Simpson has never dodged the tough issues and some of his recent comments regarding Americans and Social Security have touched off a firestorm. Without regard for his specific words, give Al credit for taking on the elephant in the room. But, while we’re on the subject, let’s address some of the myths associated with this elephant in the room.<br />
<br />
One of the common misconceptions about the Social Security System is that Congress has raided the Social Security Trust Fund and spent the money funding the current budget deficits. This is over-simplified at best and in many respects just not true. However, as is usually the case, the matter of accounting for the Social Security Trust Fund is too complicated to be adequately explained in this column. But, it deserves a better explanation than typical news sound bite, so let me give it a try.<br />
<br />
When passed and signed into law in 1935, the Social Security Act established a system for collecting payroll taxes, keeping the money in a trust fund, and providing retirement assistance for the elderly as well as disability insurance for all Americans. The key to understanding the trust fund is that the Social Security Act requires that all Social Security receipts be invested in United States Treasury Bills and that the interest accrue for the benefit of the trust fund. US Treasury Bills are the debt instruments that our government uses to finance government operations and deficits. The challenge here is that in this particular case the United States is both the lender (the Social Security Trust Fund) and the borrower (the US Treasury). <br />
<br />
Certainly, in these times of record deficits and a national debt approaching $14 trillion, many people are wondering at what point is the United States Treasury in danger of defaulting on its debt? However, for now, what is important for every American to know is that the Social Security Trust Fund is fully accounted for within the federal budget and the fund is accruing interest for the benefit of present and future recipients.<br />
<br />
The notion that Congress has raided the fund comes from a not well understood nuance of the federal budget process. When preparing and reporting federal budgets, both the President and Congress designate certain budgetary items, such as the U.S. Postal Service and the Social Security System, as “off-budget.” This means that the receipts and outlays associated with these programs are not part of the annual budget appropriations process and are accounted for separately. However, when reporting the total budget of the United States, the receipts and outlays for off-budget programs are included in the totals. During the past and even currently, Social Security Trust Fund receipts exceed outlays, thus including the Social Security System in the total budget has the net effect of making the deficit appear smaller. This is what leads some people to suggest that Congress has raided the trust fund, but that statement simply is not true.<br />
<br />
Now, let us consider some of the actuarial facts about the Social Security System. Since inception in 1935 until today, receipts have exceeded outlays, and accordingly, the trust fund together with interest has grown. Based on current population numbers, the size of the work force now and in the future, and the expected increased life expectancy of Americans, analysts believe the Social Security Trust Fund will continue to grow until around the year 2025. At that point in time, outlays will begin to exceed receipts, including interest, and the trust fund has been estimated to become insolvent, bankrupt, broke by about 2042, with some more recent estimates as early as 2037.<br />
<br />
We can say what we want about how much you and I have paid or will pay into the system. We can make all the platitudes we want about how we are entitled to our Social Security retirement. But, none of that will have any bearing on the fact that, as currently funded and allocated by law, the Social Security System will be broke within our children’s life times. We may not want to see the retirement age raised or our benefits reduced, but where is the equity for our children and grandchildren who will pay into the system for decades and see nothing in return. <br />
<br />
We may not like it when the likes of Al Simpson tells us “Where the pigs eat the cabbage” with respect to Social Security, but turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the inherent and systemic problems with the Social Security Trust Fund will not advance us one wit. When it comes to fixing the Social Security problem, I may not want to have my ox gored, but someone’s ox will certainly get gored sooner or later.<br />
<br />
At the risk of exposing myself to ridicule and criticism, I would like to suggest that the sooner Americans get together and help Congress find a way to address the certain and catastrophic failure of the Social Security System the better. And, the least painful it will be for all of us. There have been a number of ideas floated over the years that would make the system solvent into the foreseeable future without gutting current or near-term benefits for recipients. The scared cow will soon be on life support and it will die unless we put our differences aside and make the adjustments necessary to ensure Social Security’s viability for the long term.Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-88403174701301940522011-02-03T18:47:00.002-05:002011-02-03T18:47:22.688-05:00The Gun Culture in AmericaWith recent headlines, comes the inevitable deploring of the use of words associated with guns and shooting. While I believe in measured rhetoric and I am not a supporter of vitriolic speeches, I mourn for the loss of America’s culture when I hear the political correctness movement suggest that gun metaphors lead to violence.<br />
<br />
American history is so intermeshed with weapons and the right to bears arms that gun terminology has become part of the vernacular. Moreover, the origins of our freedom and the establishment of democracy can be directly linked to an armed citizenry who took up their muskets to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for themselves and their posterity. <br />
<br />
Let us consider the extent to which we use of gun metaphors in today’s modern-American English. To name a few: You’re “jumping the gun.” That’s like “shooting your self in the foot.” That person is a “straight shooter.” I need that like I need a “hole on the head.” He bought it “lock, stock, and barrel.” “Lock and load.” “Rock and fire.” That is “on target.” The goal is “within range.” Keep your “powder dry.” “Set your crosshairs” on that. They are “under the gun.” The final “shot” “beat the gun.” We are “going great guns.” You should “stick to your guns.” Bring in the “big guns.” That is the “smoking gun.” He is a “hired gun.” Why not “take a shot at it?” The idea was “shot down.” They are “shooting off” at the mouth. That person has a “hair trigger” temper. They are a little “slow on the draw.” Sometimes we have to “lower our sights.” <br />
<br />
Some people suggest that when the 2nd Amendment refers to “a well armed militia,” it means only the National Guard or other state branch of law enforcement. Others make the case that the Amendment is only about protecting our hunting heritage. I believe the 2nd Amendment is about much more than a well armed militia and protecting opportunities for sport hunting. In fact, if you don’t think the Founding Fathers meant for you and I to have “the right to bears arms” of any kind for any lawful purpose then consider some of their writings. <br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson said, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Jefferson put the 2nd Amendment in perspective when he said, "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."<br />
<br />
Samuel Adams referenced the right of citizens to bear arms when he said, “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property, together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” He went on to say, "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"<br />
<br />
Consider George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment, who said, "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."<br />
<br />
George Washington made the importance of gun rights clear. "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence…”<br />
<br />
Patrick Henry added these two points. "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."<br />
<br />
Alexander Hamilton complimented that when he said, "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."<br />
<br />
Beyond the 2nd Amendment issues, the manufacturing of firearms in the United States in the 1800’s was one of the prime drivers of the Industrial Revolution that established America as the most powerful and benevolent nation on earth. And it was guns that won the West and, notwithstanding the scrutiny of how American Indians were treated, the settlement of the West was also crucial to making the United States a world power for good and peace.<br />
<br />
We owe the establishment of the world’s first democracy and beacon of freedom to guns for we surely could have never prevailed against the British Empire without a well armed citizenry. We can be thankful that gun manufacturing pioneered the Industrial Revolution and the manufacturing processes used by other industries making the United States the economic hope and benefactor of the world. And, we can be proud that Americans are free to use their gun lexicon in their daily lives as they see fit, at least for now.<br />
<br />
As pundits line up to analyze every tragic shooting and suggest their remedy to what they perceive to be the problem, let us take stock in the fact that firearms, gun ownership, shooting sports, and even the use of weapons by law enforcement and our military is as American as apple pie. Moreover, firearms are so intertwined with our culture that even those who don’t own or use a weapon, likely utilize gun metaphors in their everyday life. <br />
<br />
The next time someone in the news media suggests, as has been done recently, that gun metaphors should be the new “N-word,” I hope someone out there has the courage to tell them that they are way “off target.”Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-72130169399895362172011-01-14T14:31:00.002-05:002011-01-14T14:31:58.899-05:00Let's Not OverreactAt the risk of being a reactionary, can we please stop overreacting to tragic events?<br />
<br />
At the time of this writing, the horrific shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and nearly 20 others in Tucson, AZ, is barely 24 hours old. And this columnist is as concerned about these kinds of senseless killings as the next person. Moreover, my sympathy and condolences go out to everyone injured and killed in Tucson.<br />
<br />
But, at the same time, it never ceases to amaze me how Americans have a penchant for quickly reacting to these events, leaping to wild and unsubstantiated conclusions, and suggesting knee-jerk remedies. In the case of the Tucson shooting, immediately some people tried to pin the rampage on the Tea Party Movement, or at a minimum, suggested that conservative rhetoric somehow caused the shooter to commit this crime. <br />
<br />
For the record, the shooter has no ties with the Tea Party Movement. However, the speed with which some pundits tried to draw that correlation is at least as dangerous as any language used by conservatives and Tea Partiers. <br />
<br />
My point is this. Why do Americans have this fixation on finding someone or something to blame for every tragic event? And worse yet, why do we often implement a solution to a perceived problem that is at times worse than the originating event?<br />
<br />
Take the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill. A horrible accident, but rather than accept that, the U.S. Government immediately started seeking someone to blame instead of cleaning up the mess. The Attorney General launched an investigation and promised to prosecute the law breakers, as if poor judgment is the same as willfully breaking the law. Deep water oil and gas exploration was stopped even though the U.S. needs the oil and we have the best safety and environmental record of any nation in the world. Oil has been seeping naturally into oceans for eons at volumes far greater than man-caused spills or leaks. Nonetheless, we overreacted to the Deepwater Horizon spill resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of good-paying jobs, increased cost of energy for all Americans, billions of dollars of decreased revenues to the U.S. Treasury, and equipment and exploration operation taken to riskier places in the world perhaps resulting in greater threats to the environment.<br />
<br />
Take the gross overreaction to the marginal science that suggests human-caused carbon dioxide emissions may cause catastrophic global warming. One reaction was to create tax incentives for hybrid cars that rely heavily upon batteries that use lead and sulfuric acid. Did anyone ever stop to think about where lead comes from or what sulfuric acid spilled in a car wreck might do to the environment? And what happens to the old batteries when a hybrid quits running? There are very few places to dispose of old batteries because most facilities have been shut down in an overreaction to a few bad apples who did not handle battery waste properly. <br />
<br />
Another equally wrong-headed response to global-warming fear mongering was to encourage more corn be used for ethanol fuel production. Notwithstanding the fact that corn uses more energy than it creates, this policy diverts corn from the food production chain. Less food means higher costs and more poverty. Poverty is the single greatest threat to the global environment. Just take a look at the environmental damage occurring in third-world countries. Progress and prosperity will be the only way we work through whatever environmental problems may exist in this planet we call home.<br />
<br />
Next time there is a plane crash watch the new media flock to cover the story and spend days analyzing what went wrong or searching for someone to blame. Americans react to this news coverage. Every time an airplane crashes—despite the fact that air travel is statistically one of the safest modes of travel—Americans respond by flying less and driving more. Yet, your chances of dying in an automobile are about 24 times greater than the likelihood of dying in a plane crash!<br />
<br />
It is not just the news media that overreacts to tragic events. There are those ambulance-chasing lawyers who never saw an accident that did not represent an opportunity. The anecdotal stories are endless. You have heard about the law suits and huge awards against service providers and manufacturers over things like hot coffee spilled in a lap or limbs cut off because someone tried to trim the hedge with a lawnmower. Please, must I suffer through yet another safety device that makes my tools harder to use and more expensive just because some idiot pulled a stupid stunt?<br />
<br />
Everyone is talking about the new TSA procedures of groping and fondling people in a feckless effort to decrease terrorism on airplanes. I believe that terrorists long ago figured out that using airplanes as weapons is too hard. Now they are more likely looking at train stations, subways, and other places where a lot of people gather and the security is less rigorous. Yet, here we go again, overreacting instead of being forward thinking and proactive. <br />
<br />
Americans tend to focus on “What” and “Where” of the tragedy instead of the “Why.” And sometimes the “Why” just defies explanation. Other times, the “Why” does not matter because nobody could have foreseen the event, or nothing could have prevented it. Whether a terrorist, or a crazed killer, uses an airplane, bomb, car, gun, or a pocket knife matters much less than the fact that in a free society we have to accept a certain level of risk. Out West there is a saying, “I’ll live ‘til I die, unless a tree falls on me.”<br />
<br />
You can bet your boots that the Tucson shooting will once again invigorate the gun-control zealots. However, the reality is that guns are no more the cause of murders than pencils and pens are the reason for hate mail or books led Hitler to perpetrate the worst hate crime in history.<br />
<br />
As Benjamin Franklin said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." It seems to me that every time we overreact, another liberty is sacrificed at the alter security. Let us mourn for the victims; care for the survivors; find, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators; but let’s avoid the temptation to overreact and apply more cures that are worse than the problems.Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-28324194132895456592011-01-01T11:13:00.000-05:002011-01-01T11:13:09.675-05:00No More Resolutions, PleaseOn this New Year’s Eve, I am sure many of you are making resolutions for 2011. Some are resolving to exercise more and lose weight—a perennial resolution after the bounty of the Christmas Season. Others are resolving to do things such as pay down debt, save more money, or start retirement planning.<br />
<br />
Whatever your resolution is this year, I am sure it is well intended and honorable, but the odds are overwhelming that by the second week of January your resolution will have devolved to disillusion. It happens every year to millions of Americans. In fact, there is a cottage industry dedicated to helping you set your sights lower and providing advice on how to do better at sticking to your resolutions. <br />
<br />
My advice is to resolve to make no resolutions. Don’t make promises you can’t or won’t keep. Jesus cautioned us to not swear by any oaths, but rather, “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’.” Good advice.<br />
<br />
Many people are optimistic for 2011, because they believe the 112th Congress with a new Republican majority in the House and the Senate will resolve to balance the budget, end earmarks, shift the U.S. economic policy back toward free enterprise, and restore integrity to a Federal government. My advice at the national level is the same as my personal advice—don’t expect a whole lot of change. It is not that I don’t think change is necessary; it’s just that change is difficult. If it is hard for us to keep our personal resolutions after two weeks, how can we realistically expect dramatic change in an institution that, despite having a new Republican majority, is about 85% unchanged?<br />
<br />
More to the point, our Constitution has built in dampers on radical change through a system of checks and balances. Gridlock is alive and well and the current Democrat in the White House has the same policy agenda even if Congress wants to go in a different direction. And then you have the steady hand on the tiller—a Supreme Court that rarely experiences any significant shift in ideology.<br />
<br />
George Washington, at the Constitutional Convention, argued for a stronger Executive Branch and more power for the President, but the rest of the Founding Fathers, still feeling the sting of a dominant King George and the English monarchy, opted to vest more power in the Congress. Their belief was that the Legislative Branch, especially the House of Representatives with two-year terms of office, would be closer to the populace and better represent the will of the people.<br />
<br />
Even if they believed the Legislative Branch would better represent the people, the Founding Fathers were not naïve about the trappings of powers and how the potential for greed and corruption was always a potential stumbling stone for our democracy. Not wanting any branch of government to dominate, they built in enough flexibility in the Constitution and some Presidents have exerted greater powers of the Executive Branch. <br />
<br />
Historically, we have seen shifts between Congress and the President in the balance of power in the United States. Abraham Lincoln used Executive privilege to enact many of his anti-slavery policies and to prosecute the Civil War. So much so, that after his assassination, Congress reacted by putting a stranglehold on Andrew Johnson’s Presidency. That Congress even went so far as to impeach Johnson for charges that basically amounted to nothing more than daring to disagree with Congress. Fortunately, for the republic, the Senate failed to convict Johnson and we continue to have vigorous and healthy disagreements between Presidents and Congress.<br />
<br />
Theodore Roosevelt used the bully pulpit to ram his policies through Congress and sometimes by Executive Order. Woodrow Wilson engaged the United States in World War I largely by Executive Power, a move that cost him dearly when he tried to get Congress to approve his life-long dream of establishing the League of Nations. Franklin D. Roosevelt took a note from his cousin’s playbook to implement some of the most sweeping legislative policies in history. Kennedy, and later Johnson, used the Executive Power as Commander in Chief to engage the U.S. in an undeclared war in Viet Nam. This led Congress to enact the War Powers Act and severely limit the President’s power to wage war.<br />
<br />
Currently, we live in a time of unheard of Congressional power. There is virtually no matter that Congress does not deem itself fit to investigate or regulate. While budget deficits grow, Congress has annually failed to enact appropriation bills for the Federal government for nearly four years in a row. Instead they punt by passing Continuing Resolutions. Yet, Congress somehow finds the time to hold hearings on issues such as steroid use in baseball, or to castigate industry leaders for their policies because they don’t run their business the way Congress thinks they should. <br />
<br />
In recent years, Congress has developed legislative gimmickry such as earmarks, or continuing resolutions, or pieces of legislation so large that only the dedicated few ever read them before they are passed. The current state of legislating in the United States is such that it is nearly impossible to hold a Member of Congress accountable for their vote and this is by design. Acts of Congress are like ornament-laden Christmas trees; there are so many babbles and bells that you are bound to like some of them. If you listen to campaign rhetoric, it is difficult to tell who is good and who is bad. There is always some vote that can be used to portray a candidate in a certain light, either good and bad.<br />
<br />
And, what about Congressional Resolutions? Congress annually passes hundreds of resolutions, most of them non-binding. Many of these resolutions are of less consequence than you resolving to exercise more and lose weight in 2011. Congress recognizes things such 50th wedding anniversaries, community leaders, local heroes, and a variety of people groups—all good stuff and no doubt these people have done something special. But, if Congress cannot find time to pass the appropriations bills, a responsibility prescribed in the Constitution, do they have any business passing resolutions just so they can get their constituent’s name in the Congressional Record?<br />
<br />
As for me and my hopes for 2011, I would like Congress to stop adopting meaningless resolutions and get on with the business of governing this nation.Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-15194290117408560552010-12-18T10:07:00.002-05:002010-12-18T10:07:24.102-05:00The Disinformation AgeThe Information Age—we are told that we live during a time when information is power and that our access to information is unfettered thanks largely to spectacularly advances in technology.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt in my mind that the breadth and depth of our access to information is not only virtually immeasurable today, it continues to grow at an exponential rate. Computers are certainly at the center of this information boom, but smart phone technology now puts all this information at our fingertips 24/7 nearly any place on the planet. <br />
<br />
I am a self-admitted technology junky. I was dubbed the Alpha Geek when I ran the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce. It was the same year “Alpha Geek” came in second place to “Soccer Mom” for the best new term of the year. When I went on to be a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of the Interior in Washington, DC, I soon found I was inducted as the Chair of the newly formed E-Government Team. I was one of the first to ditch my Franklin Day Planner for a Palm Pilot. And when the Blackberry came out, I was the living embodiment of a CrackBerry head. <br />
<br />
There is a certain sense of exhilaration when you can settle the argument over who wrote a song while zooming around the Capital Beltway at 70 mph. Together with the adrenaline rush of circumnavigating Washington, DC, in a car, the combined events can pump more endorphins than running the Boston Marathon.<br />
<br />
But, just like the Capital Beltway, the Information Super Highway is subject to traffic jams; accidents; poor signage; unskilled, aggressive, and passive-aggressive drivers; vandalism; law breakers; hoodlums; and thieves. Yes, at times, the Information Super Highway seems to carry as much junk and disinformation as it does valuable goods and services. At the risk of being politically incorrect, dare I say that taking the wrong off ramp on the information highway can be almost as dangerous as making a wrong turn in Southeast Washington, DC.<br />
<br />
You see, the problem with the internet is the same thing that makes it so wonderful—it is cheap, unbridled, uninhibited, uncensored, accessible, unaccountable, and run by highly opinionated people. In short, for every true fact found on the internet, there seems to be at least as many distortions or down right untruths presented. And the opinions expressed, oh my. I have heard it said that opinions are like posteriors, everyone has one; but, on the internet two or three seems to be more the norm. I am reminded of what Dick Cheney once said, “You have the right to free speech, but that does not make you right.” Or, as Al Simpson often said, “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.” If ever there was a time for people to exercise discernment and even skepticism in what they read, it is now. <br />
<br />
I cannot count the times that someone has forwarded an email to me that was so glaring in its distortions that I felt compelled to correct the Sender even at the risk of offending them. The problem is that it is so easy to Forward an email to your group of friends that we do it without ever thinking that what we are Forwarding may be wrong.<br />
<br />
I know there are fact checking websites out there such as FactCheck.org and Snopes.com, but it seems even those sites have their own agenda and are not always as objective as they lead you to believe. <br />
<br />
The problem seems to have its origins in an age old phenomena—if you see it in print, it must be true. I don’t know when or why this became part of the information-processing norm, but I can tell you that if people read it they believe it is true and that is scary. What makes it worse is a new journalistic ploy of making an outlandish and unsubstantiated statement in an opinion piece for the editorial page. Opinion pieces are not held to the same journalistic standard as regular news stories. The danger is that often times op-eds are quoted in subsequent news stories where the reader assumes the reporter has done their due diligence and fact checked their story. <br />
<br />
I have personally been the victim of this new kind of character-assassination journalism when the New York Times published a lead editorial impugning my work and character based on mistruths and distortions put out by an environmental group. In the end, these lies were reprinted nearly 300 times in newspaper stories across the country. Google Paul Hoffman and the Department of the Interior and you will find many disparaging stories about me. They are not true, but they are “in print” nonetheless. And it is amazing how many people who do not know you or your work will believe the worst about you because they read it in print or on the internet.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, these kinds of disinformation stories gain traction in the eyes of the reading public because reporters do not take the time to verify their information or contact the victim of the story to hear their side. There is an old saying that says, “Bad news travels at the speed of light; good news is lucky to get up to the speed of sound.” Unsubstantiated and misinformed emails can go around the world in seconds. And if seeing it in print makes it true, then seeing three or four times in your Inbox must mean it is accurate. As unfortunate as that is, it is real and that is why in the Information Age it is more important than ever that you be appropriately skeptical and take the time yourself to learn the rest of the story. Before you hit the Forward button on your email program, ask yourself, “Do I know this to be true?” If you can’t answer that in the affirmative, then the Biblical advice will serve you well, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-83204450743530925352010-12-04T14:29:00.001-05:002010-12-04T14:45:45.753-05:00Thanksgiving--the Forgotten HolidayAs I write this column, it is Thanksgiving Day 2010, but you would not know that if you drove through any downtown, listened to the radio, or watched television. Thanksgiving has become the forgotten holiday. The quintessential American holiday has become subservient to Halloween followed by an immediate transition to Christmas. In my view, this is a shame because despite the recession, regardless of your negative opinions about politics in America, and notwithstanding the unstable state of the world, we have much to be thankful for here in America.<br />
<br />
The problem, it seems, is that the retail sector has not found a way to significantly market Thanksgiving. Store shelves can be stocked with Halloween decorations, costumes, and candy and those same shelves are quickly converted to Christmas merchandise. In an effort to maximize potential sales, the Christmas shopping season now begins before Thanksgiving. Even if the buying doesn’t start early, the advertising and buzz for Black Friday, Small Business Saturday, and Cyber Monday begin long before Thanksgiving.<br />
<br />
Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of capitalism, free enterprise, and merchandizing. For decades, the United State’s economy has been largely consumer driven. Jobs and livelihoods are riding on a good Christmas season. I am all for it. I hope everyone makes a million bucks.<br />
<br />
But, let us not forget to take time at least once a year on Thanksgiving to give thanks. To reflect on the bounty, blessings, liberties, and inalienable rights that God has bestowed upon us, the residents of the greatest nation on earth. Let us take the time to give thanks to all those soldiers, veterans, law enforcement personnel, and emergency workers, who put their lives on the line for our safety and to secure the blessings we enjoy.<br />
<br />
Perhaps it would even behoove us to reflect back on the values expressed by Congress and the first President of the United States when Thanksgiving was established by proclamation back in 1789 as the original American holiday.<br />
<br />
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and<br />
<br />
Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness":<br />
<br />
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we many then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have enabled do establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. <br />
<br />
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.<br />
<br />
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, AD 1789<br />
<br />
- George Washington<br />
<br />
I believe those words are more than enough to remind us why we should never forget to stop from time to time and give thanks. And not just thanks for all that we have or are, but thanks to the one true God—the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is within them. We should not relegate Thanksgiving to just another day off, or a football tradition, or a celebration of food, or the kickoff for the naked consumerism of Christmas. In fact, as we pause just once a year to give thanks, perhaps as a nation, we should consider taking God off the shelf, recognize and honor our Christian heritage, and give thanks to and bless the Almighty God whom our forefathers freely acknowledged and unabashedly credited for their blessings and rights.<br />
<br />
As the Bob Dylan song goes, “But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed; You’re gonna have to serve somebody; Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord; But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.”<br />
<br />
Even more to the point, consider what Joshua said to the Israelites as they entered the Promised Land, “And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-30492469310811208442010-11-19T19:45:00.000-05:002010-11-19T19:45:27.069-05:00ChangeChange! It’s everywhere. It’s rapid. It’s huge. It can be overwhelming. Some say the only constant in life is change. Resistance is futile. Build a bridge and get over it.<br />
<br />
But, is all change good? A friend of mine, who also was my computer tech, often said, “Progress is not always progress.” It is legitimate to ask if computers have really saved us any time? Or, has the paperless society really resulted in less paper being consumed? In fact, it is appropriate for us to weigh the pros and cons of any change—to ask the tough questions.<br />
<br />
And how do we cope with all this change and when does change become too much for people to handle? Everyone has their own capacity for change. When they reach that threshold, stress increases and we can see that manifest in anger or even violence. Certainly, stress resulting from too much change is the one reason many people have heart disease, hypertension, high blood pressure, ulcers, and headaches—even cold sores can be attributed to stress. Those are the physiological manifestations of stress caused by too much change, but what about the psychological impacts—psychotic breakdowns, frayed nerves, and people who take it out on their fellow workers or their family?<br />
<br />
I took a course on Change Management when I attended the Institute for Organizational Management back in the early 90’s. Everyone in that class was under the same misconception that we would learn how to control all the change around us and thus reduce the stress. Wrong! What we learned is that change is all around us and most of it is virtually out of our control. But, what we can do is develop coping mechanisms to help us deal with change—to build that bridge and get over it. Most of our coping mechanisms take the form of habits; those things we do routinely that take our mind off of everything else and restore that sense of control we have lost. Obsessive compulsive behavior fills this need for many of us. The instructor told a story about a guy who was experiencing extraordinary change in his workplace. His coping mechanism was his sock drawer! He would go home every night and admire the way each pair of socks were matched, folded, and in their place—just the way he wanted them; the way they should be.<br />
<br />
For me, this guy’s sock drawer was somewhat of an epiphany. You have to know my wife. She is an artist and a writer, a left-brain person. I am more anal compulsive and right brained. We are a match made in heaven because together we have the full compliment of left and right-brain thinking, but I digress. At our house, one can find the scissors have been put away in any one of five drawers. Historically, it drove me nuts because I always wondered why the scissors could not be put in one drawer where they belonged. The sock drawer story made me realize that the reason I was so obsessive about the scissors was that I was looking for stability at home to help me cope with all the change at work. What a brilliant flash of genius! When I got home I was eager to explain my new revelation about my behavior and foolishly thought my wife would fully understand. But, no, she blithely told me, “That’s nice, Honey, but don’t expect me to change.” Argh!<br />
<br />
So what are we to do about all this change in our lives and in society. I recently read an essay by Philip Kennicott, staff writer for the Washington Post: The Civil War taught us to fight for the right to be wrong. Yes, the Civil War Sesquicentennial is in 2011 and Americans will once again go through the exercise of second guessing our history and the motives of those long gone. The essence of the essay is that the South seceded from the Union because they were resisting the inevitable change of the abolition of slavery. In hindsight, which of course is always 20/20 vision, I believe we all agree that slavery was wrong and abolishing it was the right thing to do. But, there were significant cultural and economic barriers to change in 1861. In some ways, the die of secession had already been cast and the Civil War occurred because people fixated on their differences and not on their common ground. It often happens that way.<br />
<br />
Today in our nation, we have seen a lot of change in our governance. Many people believe that over the last seventy or so years, this country has enacted programs that have gradually moved our economy away from a free enterprise system and to a more socialist system. The enactment of health care reform this year has been for many a straw that is breaking the camel’s back. People have reacted by organizing and mobilizing. I have never heard more “revolutionary” rhetoric since the anti-Viet Nam War protests of the 60’s. But, it is for all of us to consider whether people are “fighting for the right to be wrong” or whether this particular kind of change is bad.<br />
<br />
I would argue that the change we are experiencing in our government and economy is not good. Communism and its diminutive form, socialism, have failed elsewhere in the world and these systems do not work largely because they ignore the basic needs and motivations of humans. I believe, therefore, it is important to resist this kind of change through every peaceable means available to us. The free enterprise system works and is worthy of our defense. It generates the most wealth for the greatest number of people. As for me, I will not be bullied into accepting change just because some progressive tells me it is the natural course of things or that it is for the greater good.<br />
<br />
And one of those forms of resistance, fortunately for us, was built into our Constitutional form of government. Our Founding Fathers built a system of check and balances, and intentionally or not, the end result has been bureaucracy. While normally considered to be a bad thing, I believe bureaucracy is the keel of the ship of state. Were it not for bureaucracy, each political change in administrations could conceivably change the course of the ship of state 180 degrees. As it is, each new administration can only get what can be characterized as a course correction of 5 or 10 degrees, to the left or to the right, and then they spend the rest of their time tying down the wheel and welding the rudder.<br />
<br />
Change—it is inevitable, or is it? Change is always about progress, or is it? Should we all just find a way to cope with change and consider it to be just a fact of life—build a bridge and get over it. Or, should we consider the merits of change—the pros and cons of any particular change—and then work for it or against it based on what we believe to be best for our families, communities, and the country?Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-34450589030458490882010-11-05T18:45:00.002-04:002010-11-05T18:45:35.708-04:00You Picked a Fine Time to Lead Us, Barack"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." <br />
<br />
Those are the words Admiral Yamamoto supposedly uttered shortly after receiving the first reports about the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in the early hours of December 7, 1941. More prophetic words could not have been spoken because, as a result of the sneak attack by Japan, the United States of America was jarred out of its complacent, isolationist position that the war in Europe and the Pacific were somebody else’s war. By the end of World War II, victory of the good and righteous was secured in both theatres of that conflict by an American military machine and soldiers that mobilized and fought with conviction and courage from the islands of the South Pacific to the shores of Normandy. <br />
<br />
As Abraham Lincoln said in his 2nd Inaugural Address, “With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work…” That is what Americans do when stirred into action for a just and noble cause.<br />
<br />
If you have been reading my column for the past few years, you will know that I am no fan of Barack Obama’s policies. From economics to tax policy, from climate change to cap and trade, from real health care reform to Obamacare, from uniter to divider, I am convinced that Barack Obama may go down in recent history as one of the worst Presdients of modern times. Now, of course, history will be the final judge of that, but as far as my humble opinion goes, well, I probably need say no more.<br />
<br />
At the time of this writing, the 2010 Mid-Term Elections are barely over. Although perhaps overly projected by some pundants to be Republican sweep of seismic proportions—even exceeding the Republican Revolution of 1994—the final outcome is nonetheless a popular rejection of many of Barack Obama’s major policy initiatives.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama has awaken the sleeping giant of the conservative movement in this country. He has unleashed an ultra liberal agenda that exposed many Members of Congress who had been hiding behind a more conservative façade The ensuing uproar has become the newest “…shot heard around the world.” <br />
<br />
The Tea Party Patriots owe their very existence and huge popularity to Barack Obama. But for the $867 billion failed stimulus bill, the job killing cap and trade bill, and the final death knell of Obamacare, the Tea Party Patriots would have gained little traction. Now, they will hold the new Republican leaders accountable.<br />
<br />
America has been dismayed by the shock and awe of some of the extreme anti-buisness rhetoric and the government control of key sectors of the private sector by Congress and this Administration. Many citizens even dare to say our nation is dangerously close to becoming a socialist state. <br />
<br />
The arrogance of Barack Obama’s words, “I won!” at his first meeting with the Republican Minority in Congress. The audacity of Congress passing legislation that few had read and no one fully understood just so, “We can find out what is says,” according to Nancy Pelosi. The idea that Americans should be happy with the notion that “…electric rates would necessarily skyrocket…,” according to Obama, so that we can address what may, or may not, happen to the climate in 100 years whether we do anything or not. The creation of dozens of Czars in the United States Government who are given unpresedented authority to carry out their missions, arguably without the benefit of our Constiututional checks and balances. Yes, the past 20 months have been a never ending series of arrogant elected officials talking down to a population who is not buying one bit of it. It is a sham.<br />
<br />
Here in Prince Edward County, Virginia, I have witnessed first hand a resurgence of conservative activism. One night last winter in Farmville, 10 volunteers signed up to be members of the local Republican Committee. Since then, we have seen an unprecedented surge in party activism. These people are fired up for the election like never before. Thank you, Barack Obama.<br />
<br />
Across the 5th District here in Central and Southside Virginia, I have heard about World War II Veterans saying, “This is the most important election of my lifetime.” They are truly scared for the future of this country and for their grand children who will be saddled with unprecendented and record-setting deficit spending. Terms like “income redistribution” and higher taxes for the “rich”—whatever rich is in today’s world—scare the heck out of the Greatest Generation.<br />
<br />
Pre-election accounts of voter fraud were running rampant and stories about the Service Employees International Union running the ballot machines in key states smacks of conflict of interest. And now we have the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals talking about giving illegal aliens the right to vote in 2012! I am reminded of the movie, Bridge of River Kwai, when, after the British Colonel falls dead on the detonator blowing up the bridge the British prisoners had ill-advisedly built so well, Major Clipton stands on the hill exclaiming, “Madness! Madness!”<br />
<br />
Yes, I have certainly had my share of exascerbating moments with Barack Obama’s policies. He certainly picked a fine time to lead us, perhaps even down the path of socialism, but as I savor the 2010 Mid-Term Election results, I must admit I owe Barack Obama a debt of gratitude. For indeed, it must be said that President Obama has awakened “…a sleeping giant.”Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-6556040971550950752010-10-22T18:01:00.002-04:002010-10-22T18:01:33.875-04:00Do Not Muzzle the OxThere are two hot button topics that receive a lot of attention these days— Congressional retirement and Congressional pay. Unfortunately most of what you hear about Congressional retirement is just plain false and I believe much of the ballyhoo about Congressional salaries is not justified.<br />
<br />
The often repeated rumor is that a Representative or a Senator receives their full salary for the rest of their lives even if they have only served one term. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but that rumor is pure poppycock. Representatives and Senators participate in the same retirement plans that are available to federal employees with one notable exception; they are fully vested in their retirement after five full years of service whereas federal employees are partially vested after 10 years and fully vested only after 20 years of service.<br />
<br />
All Members of Congress elected in 1984 or later, like all federal employees hired after that date, participate in the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). They pay into the Social Security system at the rate of 6.2% of the first $97,500 of their salary and they pay into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund at the rate of 1.3% of their full salary. The federal government matches their contributions to those funds just like your private sector employer matches the 7.5% you pay into the Social Security fund. Representatives and Senators elected prior to 1984, like federal employees hired before that date, are participants in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). After 1984, they were all given the opportunity to stay in the CSRS or convert to FERS.<br />
<br />
Representatives and Senators are fully vested in the FERS after five full years of service, but they may not draw upon that retirement until age 62 with the following exceptions. If they have 20 years of service they may start drawing retirement at age 50 after they leave Congress, and if they have 25 years of service, they may start drawing retirement at any age after they leave Congress.<br />
<br />
The amount of their retirement pension is based on the number of years served and the average of their highest three years of salary, but by law, their pension may never exceed 80% of their final salary.<br />
<br />
According to the Congressional Research Service, “As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.” (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf)<br />
<br />
Now that the retirement myth is busted, let’s turn to the issue of Congressional pay. Many people believe we ought to have more of a citizen Congress that requires Members of Congress to earn their money in the real world and to not be paid by the federal government. Indeed, the Founding Fathers had this same debate during the Constitutional Convention with Benjamin Franklin arguing for no pay. However, he did not prevail and the first Members of Congress were paid a per diem of $6.00 a day when in session. Members of Congress began receiving an annual salary in 1855 and the rest is history. Current Members of Congress are paid $174,000 per year except the Speaker of the House who gets $223,500 per year and the Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders who each receive $193,400 per year. The salary levels are calculated by the Office of Personnel Management and these salaries become the basis for Judges’ salaries as well as the salaries of senior federal executives.<br />
<br />
Now, one can certainly debate the merits of these salaries and what level of salary is appropriate for the job, but the Founding Fathers clearly understood the Biblical principle that you should not muzzle the ox—in other words it is only fair that if the ox helps you harvest the grain and turns the mill stone to make the flour then you should not prevent the ox from eating while it works. We have certain expectations of our Congressmen and Senators and we should pay a fair wage for the work they do on our behalf. And, when re-election time comes around, we should hold them accountable for the job they have done.<br />
<br />
More to the point, we want smart, energetic, and principled leaders to run our country, therefore we ought to expect to pay them a salary commensurate with their skills. The reality is that most Members of Congress have extraordinary skills that would probably enable them to earn more money in the private sector than they get paid in Congress. Many Members of Congress have left much higher paying jobs to enter public service in order to help make this country a better and safer place to live.<br />
<br />
Certainly, in most communities across the United States and compared to the average American salary, $174,000 a year is a very comfortable income. But, let us consider that Members of Congress must maintain two households, one in their home district and one in the Washington metropolitan area. Moreover, unless you are willing to commute over one hour each way on top of your 10-12 hour day at work, sometimes seven days a week, then you will probably be paying somewhere between $800,000 to $1 million for a modest town home within 30 minutes of the Capitol.<br />
<br />
The Bible also says in Proverbs 30:9, “For if I grow rich, I may deny you and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’ And if I am too poor, I may steal and thus insult God’s holy name.” There are countless stories in recent times about Congressional corruption, or at minimum, questionable business dealings by several Members of Congress. Certainly, an appropriate salary should help reduce the need and temptation to seek outside income, and at the same time, a salary that is not too high will help our representatives remember from whence they came. But, whatever the salary is for Members of Congress, let us remember we pay them because we expect a lot from them and we do not muzzle the ox.Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-46370696166586938452010-10-09T16:48:00.001-04:002010-10-22T18:02:01.061-04:00Stop the Bush BashingTo coin the often used phrase, “I am mad as heck and I am not going to take it anymore!” It has been almost two years since George W. Bush left office and he is not just still the focus of the Democrats, but even Republicans have taken to blaming Bush for whatever issue they face today. <br />
<br />
Enough is enough. George W. Bush has retired to Crawford, Texas, and in the most dignified retirement from public life in decades, he has stayed completely out of the public fray over politics and the debate about the changes this country is going through. <br />
<br />
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I worked for George W. Bush from 2002 through most of 2008. I consider it an honor to have served under his Administration and leadership. Although I never met him personally, he would periodically gather all of his political appointees to one location and share with us his vision for public service. He would tell us he ran for President and came to Washington, DC, to do a job and that at the end of that job he would go home to Texas. He encouraged us to focus on that particular part of government we wanted to improve when we came to Washington. He told us in 2004 to forget the politics; that was his job. Our job was to serve the American people and strive to improve the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. He talked about the Oval Office. He pointed out the obvious; it has no corners. His point was that there is no place to run to in that office that did not turn you back to facing the difficult and sometimes intractable issues that face every President. But, George W. Bush is a man of faith and that faith gave him a sense of optimism and it also gave him strong convictions about what is right and what is wrong. <br />
<br />
It is George W. Bush’s faith in Jesus Christ that I believe made him the object of so much scorn throughout and even after his Presidency. Just as many of today’s critics of the Tea Party, it seems to be vogue in America to belittle Christians. It is almost as though the intellectual elite believe you have to have your brain siphoned out to be a Christian. Even the way the words “Born-Again Christian” cross their contorted lips seems to belie their underlying seething and disdain of anyone who is a person of faith. And of all the ironies of life, these are the same people who preach tolerance.<br />
<br />
Much of the criticism of George W. Bush revolves around the War on Terror and specifically the war in Iraq. George W. Bush did not ask for or seek to go to war. It is as though Americans have already forgotten that on September 11, 2001, less than nine months into his Presidency, America experienced the most devastating foreign attack on American soil in history. Moreover, the attackers could not be identified with any nation, and in fact, were just part of a loosely connected network of terrorists who believe America is the great evil. America struggled in Viet Nam because it had never faced guerilla warfare and we struggle today because the War of Terror is the most unconventional warfare planet earth has ever witnessed.<br />
<br />
George W. Bush did not pick this fight, but he did just what any other red-blooded American would do when attacked. He undertook every possible effort to secure the safety and security of America. He did this by increasing homeland security and taking the war to the terrorists, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Oh, I know, the terrorist attacks on 9/11 did not originate in Iraq. Nonetheless, every available piece of intelligence reviewed and supported by the intelligence agencies, Republicans and Democrats alike, suggested Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and that he was actively supporting terrorists in Israel by paying $50,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Saddam used weapons of mass destruction on his own people and is widely considered to have been one of the cruelest of the post-World War II dictators. A free and democratic post-Saddam Iraq will be a stabilizing influence in a part of the world that seems to breed instability.<br />
<br />
Another action for which George W. Bush has been roundly criticized, and this time by Republicans and Democrats alike, is the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or the so-called bank bailouts. While it is always in fashion to be a bank basher, banking is without a doubt at the center of every aspect of our economy. Read your history; it was the stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent failure of the banking industry that led to the Great Depression. Again, George W. Bush acted, in cooperation with Congress, to enact TARP. As a result, the banking industry did not collapse and indeed virtually every dollar invested in the banks has been repaid to the federal treasury and there has not been a calamitous failure of banks that might have bankrupted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.<br />
<br />
Border security is also an issue for which people like to say George W. Bush did not defend our borders. Nothing could be further from the truth. I actually worked on border security issues because the Department of the Interior is responsible for managing lands along nearly one half of the US/Mexico Border. I helped author a Memorandum of Understanding among the Interior, Agriculture, and Homeland Security Departments that increased cooperation, granted access to the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), and increased border security. It was the Bush Administration that completed nearly 700 miles of border fence over just a few short years. And it was George W. Bush who tripled the size of the CBP forces along the border and who ordered the National Guard to assist the CBP.<br />
<br />
History has a way of proving over time the real value of any President. Richard Nixon, who was humiliated when he resigned in the face of imminent impeachment proceedings, has now been acclaimed as one of the best modern Presidents for his foreign policy and especially his diplomacy that led to substantially improved relations between the free world and Communist China. He got the US out of Viet Nam, a war started by John F. Kennedy and escalated substantially by Lyndon B. Johnson, in as orderly a manner as was possible. <br />
<br />
Perhaps even more significant is that at the time of his assassination in 1865, Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the most unpopular President in our history. He was, of course, blamed for the Civil War which led to nearly one million American casualties. The scars of that war are still healing and goal of freeing slaves and providing them their Constitutional and God-given civil rights are still a work in progress. But, at one end of the National Mall in Washington, DC, stands the Lincoln Memorial, one of the largest monuments ever built to honor a President of the Untied States. As history shined favorably on Abraham Lincoln, I believe one day that same vindicating light will shine upon the Presidency of George W. Bush.Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-46465658526509203132010-09-23T17:19:00.001-04:002010-09-23T17:23:23.363-04:00When the Tide Comes In“Workers at a Honda plant in China recently went on strike over wages and work conditions. The Chinese have had enough of slaving in factories for $30 per week while Americans sit home on their couches, collect $400 per week in unemployment benefits, and consume the goods that the Chinese make. Chinese manufacturers are now being forced to increase the wages they pay to workers and these costs will be passed on to American importers of Chinese goods like Wal-Mart.” This according to the <a href="http://inflation.us/artificialeconomy.html">National Inflation Association </a>will lead to all sorts of economic problems for the USA in the form of higher cost of living and inflationary prices.<br /><br />I prefer to take longer look at events such as a growing third-world economy and China’s policy regarding international monetary markets and the value of their currency. <br /><br />The Chinese are finally experimenting with the value of their currency, the Yuan, by allowing limited float like every other currency in the world. Floating currencies change in value relative to other currencies such as the US Dollar, and they reflect a country’s economic strength and can help balance trade. It works like this. Under the communist regime, the Chinese economy was weak just a few decades ago. The Communist Party determined to embrace capitalistic investment in their country and their lower wages and lack of regulations made them more competitive than US and European manufacturers. So, Chinese manufacturing grew and their economy gained strength which would under normal international monetary policies lead to a stronger Yuan. But, the Chinese authorities until recently would not allow their currency value to float in the world currency market. If the value of the Yuan is allowed to gain strength against the US Dollar, Chinese goods become effectively more expensive for US consumers. The stronger Yuan also makes US goods and services more affordable for Chinese consumers. The net effect of a stronger Yuan would be less Chinese imports into the US and more US exports into China, and for the USA, a smaller trade deficit.<br /><br />For organizations like the National Inflation Association, increased prosperity in China is seen as a negative for the US economy. I have a substantially different view of these turns of events. <br /><br />As a life-long conservationist, I have been saying for decades that environmental laws and regulations in the USA are driving businesses offshore. To be sure, cheap labor in Asia and other locations has been a huge competitive disadvantage for a number of industries in the United States. But, many people have failed to take into account the high costs of cleaning up our waterways, reducing air pollution, and preventing hazardous waste from entering our ecosystems. Do not get me wrong; I am a strong supporter of cleaning up and protecting our nation’s air, water, and soil is important, and within limits, it is worth paying more for goods and services to live in the cleanest environment the world has to offer. But, the unintended consequence of our stronger environmental legal and regulatory framework has been to substantially increase the cost of generating power, manufacturing goods, providing services, and growing food for the world. Some of those higher expenses have been mitigated by improved technology and more efficient production methods. But, it is an incontrovertible fact that cleaning up our environment has caused a lot of industry to move to countries that do not value their environment as highly as we do.<br /><br />Indeed, the globalization of the economy and the associated increases in pollution in third-world countries is because some countries would gladly sacrifice their environment for jobs and prosperity for their people. In response, the environmental activist industry has gone international as well. The problem with the environmentalist’s message is that they believe those third-world countries should shun industry and thus prosperity in favor of maintaining their pristine environments. What the environmental community fails to recognize is that prosperity is the environment’s best friend.<br /><br />If you think about it, the only reason the USA has the cleanest air, water, and soil in the world is because Americans could afford, and therefore agreed, to pay more for goods and services in order to clean up our land. To put it another way, look at the polling data on American concerns about the environment when the economy takes a downturn. When we are in a recession, Americans show much greater concern about job creation and much less interest in new environmental restrictions. This was recently demonstrated when the Cap and Trade Bill effectively died in the Senate because people saw the bill as a job killer. At this point in time in most American’s minds, jobs are more important than the environment. It is not insignificant that, even in the face of the largest oil spill in history in waters of the United States, Americans chose jobs over a bill designed to reduce our reliance on oil and other carbon products.<br /><br />For decades now, I have told people who were concerned about the increased pollution associated with the industrialization of the third-world to relax. “Once those people have a taste of prosperity, they will become interested in cleaning up their land, water, and air,” I would say. <br /><br />There was a time when Chinese workers beat a path to the $30 a week manufacturing job. But, now they have a television and a computer with internet access. They see the world news and they begin to compare their situation with others around the world. “If Americans can get $400 a week for doing nothing, why can’t I get a higher wage for making the goods those Americans are buying,” they reason. And, now that they have a job and some level of economic security, organizing into unions and contemplating going on strike is much more palatable than it was ten years ago. And so prosperity will spread across the third-world and with prosperity and increased economic security there will be a greater desire to breath in cleaner air, to have safe drinking water, to not have toxic chemicals oozing from the soil, or fish dying in the rivers. I believe we will see a grassroots environmental movement spring up in these third-world countries, just like it did in the USA back in the sixties and seventies. But, it won’t be because some extreme environmental group made them feel guilty for having a little prosperity; it will come from within because of increased wealth and economic security.<br /><br />And the really good news to come out of all of this is that, in time, higher wages and more environmental awareness resulting from increased prosperity will result in more jobs coming back to the United States and more lucrative markets for US products overseas. The old adage about how an improved economy is good for everyone will be enhanced to read, “When the tide comes in, all the ships—big and small—float a little higher in cleaner water and under clearer skies.”Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-1773971576362301002010-09-10T14:00:00.001-04:002010-09-10T14:01:53.534-04:00Caveat Emptor“Caveat emptor” is a Latin phrase meaning “Buyer beware.” It is a principle that every consumer should adhere to for their own benefit and protection. It is a concept at the core of how micro-economics quantifies consumption decisions made by people. <br /><br />The need for buyers to beware is as old as the Devil’s temptation of Eve and then Adam and it has been a sad part of human nature ever since.. There have always been snake-oil salesmen and conmen who would sell you the cure for whatever ails you, the Brooklyn Bridge, or some land in Florida that turns out to be a swamp. Nowadays, it is the email you get from a Secretary of the Treasury of some banana republic who just happens to have $12 million dollars he would like to share with you if only you would provide your bank account numbers and other personal information. <br /><br />We are all taught to be skeptical consumers. Phrases like “Too good to be true,” or “There is no such thing as a free lunch” are burned into our psyches. We all have a deep seated mistrust of salesmen, and as wary consumers, we do our research on products before we buy them. Well, at least, I thought this was all true.<br /><br />It turns out we are not very smart consumers, so we need the government to step in and protect us poor unwitting souls. Enter the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to protect us from ourselves. Not that these agencies don’t serve a valuable role, but when does government protection slip over the line into the realm of a nanny state that treats us all like babies and severely limits our consumer choices.<br /><br />Recently, our Congressman, Tom Perriello, touted the final implementation of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (Credit CARD) and his roll in drafting the legislation. First of all, you have to love the acronym—Credit CARD. Unfortunately, that is often the most thought that goes into legislation written these days.<br /><br />While the nation is still reeling from the effects of the Great Recession, much of the blame for our economic woes are now being laid at the feet of the banking industry. “We bailed out the fat-cat banks and now they are not loaning money, thus the economy is not growing,” we hear some say. Never mind the fact that it was federal government mortgage policies that required banks to loosen the credit requirements for home loans and that is what led to the sub-prime mortgage defaults that started the Great Recession. There can be no doubt that bankers share the responsibility for coming up with products like “liar loans” and Wall Street packaged up these bad loans and sold security interest in them to consumers thirsting for a higher rate of return. Everyone can share a little blame for the collapse, but the federal policy was the root of the problem.<br /><br />But, how do we reconcile the desire to have banks loan more money on the one hand with more restrictive regulation of the banking industry on the other hand. And is more readily available credit really good for the economy? Should the American consumers borrow our way out of the recession like the federal government tried and failed to do with the stimulus bill? Was it all the fault of credit card companies that consumer credit card debt in America went from $69 billion in 1986 to $1.8 trillion in 2006?<br /><br />It is irrefutable that some credit card companies charged interest rates that were too high and they lived off consumers who spent money liberally, but paid it back with the Minimum Payment. Some of those credit card companies created their own delinquency problems by adding excessive late charges and penalties on to balances that caused the borrower to spiral into default. But, it is not as though somebody held a gun to the consumer’s head and made them buy that flat-screen television and all the other luxury items that put them in debt up to their eyeballs.<br /><br />I worked at a bank back in the 1980’s when credit companies had liberal credit policies and were mailing pre-approved credit cards to college students. But, it did not take a new law to correct the problem. It was the market system that led to a correction. Credit card losses and bankruptcies are bad for business and the appropriate response of credit card companies was to tighten credit requirements and not be so liberal in their issuance of credit cards. Obviously, memories are short term and the credit card companies thought the economy would just continue to grow us out of our excess spending habits and now the chicken has come home to roost once again. But, instead of allowing a market correction to take place, Washington has come to the rescue with a new set of onerous regulations that will increase the cost of credit cards. <br /><br />But since credit card standards are tightening up again, guess who will be paying for the new credit card regulatory compliance? That’s right, those of us who did not rack up tens of thousands of dollars in debt, those of us who pay our bills on time, those of us who exercised fiscal responsibility in our personal finances, we will be the ones paying for this new regulation. Many of you diligently guard your credit rating. You take responsibility and pay back what you borrow from others, including the banks. And because of your responsible actions and because you practice the principle of buyer beware, you most likely had a credit card with a low interest rate and no annual fee. You most likely use your credit out of convenience only and pay the balance in full each month. Good for you if you do.<br /><br />But, now, we are inundated with television and radio ads that advise us all that we have a right to make the credit card companies charge off up to one half of our credit card debt. However, that “right” only applies to those who owe more than $10,000 and to those who are delinquent on their payments. It is an upside down and crazy world that rewards bad behavior by punishing those who acted responsibly. “Buyer beware” has become “What me worry?” And “There is no such thing as a free lunch” has been embellished with “unless you eat at fine restaurants and stiff the credit company when they send you the bill.” Perhaps we should move from “Caveat emptor” to “Electoris emptor.” November is coming.Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-33524475240344050182010-08-27T21:54:00.001-04:002010-08-27T21:56:16.177-04:00Main Street USAThere is a lot of talk about Main Street USA these days. President Obama says he wants to help Main Street USA through his efforts to recover the American economy and Main Streets all across the USA are challenged like never before.<br /><br />The struggles faced by Main Street USA are not new. Main Street businesses feel like they are under siege and the attacks come from many fronts. Certainly, federal issues such as tax policies, free trade agreements, minimum wage, banking regulations, health care, energy policies have had their impact; some would say mostly negative. But, there are also a host of free market changes that have impacted Main Street USA from Wal Mart and the big-box revolution to suburbia and the proliferation of shopping malls and strip centers. A less loyal set of consumers coupled with a high degree of mobility as well as the phenomenal growth in internet trade have also contributed to Main Street woes. Add to all that what the pundits now call the Great Recession and it is not hard to see why Main Street USA is suffering.<br /><br />On the other hand, there are a number of things that bode well for Main Street USA. Entrepreneurship is still alive and well, although some would say many new policies coming out of Washington, DC, these days are driving entrepreneurs out of the marketplace. Nonetheless, high unemployment rates always cause a number of people to pursue that business dream they have always had. And, while high vacancy rates on Main Streets don’t do much for business right now, they do represent opportunity and more affordable places to locate new businesses.<br /><br />Fortunately for Main Street USA, Americans are a nostalgic lot and they are longing for the hometown feel that takes them back to a more idyllic time. We love our history and nothing conveys that like a thriving historic downtown area. The United States has a robust federal policy to preserve our history in the National Historic Preservation Act. In the United States, we use the free market system to preserve history by granting very generous tax credits to real estate owners who preserve and redevelop historic commercial properties to rigorous historic standards. Called “adaptive reuse,” downtowns across the USA are seeing historic buildings converted to indoor shopping malls, micro-breweries, restaurants, retail outlets, office space, and even apartment complexes.<br /><br />In conjunction with historic preservation, there is a national Main Street Program that seeks to facilitate the preservation and re-invigoration of historic downtown areas across the country. In addition to physical improvements to store fronts and thematic preservation of history, the Main Street Program gives downtown associations and chambers of commerce the tools to create a thriving retail atmosphere. Store hours are adjusted to meet the needs of today’s two-income families, pedestrian friendly streetscapes enhance the visitor experience, events make downtown more than a shopping destination, return policies are changed to match the big-box competition, the business mix has changed so as to not compete directly with the chain-discount stores, and excellence in personal service and product expertise helps downtown compete with the internet.<br /><br />What makes Main Street USA work is not a federal stimulus program, not another pork-barrel project brought to you by your local Congressperson, and not more government interference in the free enterprise economy. No, what makes Main Street USA work is less government, streamlined regulations, lower taxes, especially the capital gains tax rate. And, Main Street needs a National Historic Preservation program that recognizes the requirements of today’s developers and new businesses and more cooperation that allows historic preservation to be profitable. Most of all, what Main Street USA needs is government at all levels to see that what is good for business is good for all, that government/private-sector cooperation is what causes the economic tide to come in and float all the ships, big and small, a little higher.<br /><br />Farmville, Virginia, is a text book example of how Main Street USA and the United States economy will grow strong once again. It will not be through government programs, but by Americans pulling ourselves up by the boot straps. There has been a lot of talk in Farmville in recent months about the high vacancy rates, declining condition of the store fronts, and lack of downtown visitors. <br /><br />At first the discussion seemed to focus on the Town of Farmville and their parking meter policies. This local issue is a lot like a microcosm of our national economy. While it is true that the parking policies are not the cause of downtown Farmville’s woes, the parking meters are not helping the historic area recover. At the national level, while President Obama did not cause the Great Recession, his proposed policies such as nationalized health care, carbon emissions cap and trade, and higher taxes on the Americans who invest in Main Street USA have severely impaired the ability of America to pull itself out of this economic slump.<br /><br />In Farmville, the Town Council immediately took to heart the notion that their parking policies may be hurting the historic downtown, but they were not willing to shoulder the whole burden. They wisely engaged the downtown business owners, the chamber of commerce, the two local college communities, and other interested parties. The Town Council appointed two council members to be part of a newly formed, non-governmental committee to address the revitalization of downtown. At a recent inaugural meeting of the new downtown group, ideas were thrown out faster than lightning bolts in a late summer thunderstorm. The excitement was contagious and the enthusiasm to undertake a thorough and comprehensive assessment of all of the possible actions has caused some long-time downtown observers to conclude that this effort will be successful.<br /><br />In my varied career as a bank loan officer, a congressional staffer, and the director of a chamber of commerce, I have seen time and time again what can happen when a vibrant, highly motivated, unfettered-by-government group can do if the rest of us just step back and get out of the way. <br /><br />For much of my life, I had a plaque that my mother gave me that read, “Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way!” I actually resented that plaque for years because I thought my mother was trying to push me to lead; something I was not ready for or inclined to do at the time. Then it hit me like an epiphany. There are three elements to good leadership—being a good leader, being a good follower, and knowing when to get out of the way. Government, at all levels, can learn a lot and do more good for the country if they would sometimes just get out of the way.Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7134224661925056752.post-81622654433550124252010-08-15T21:59:00.001-04:002010-08-15T22:03:35.228-04:00National Parks "For Sale"The headline on the British news website, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/wyoming-grand-teton-national-park">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/wyoming-grand-teton-national-park</a>, reads “US national park faces sale.” The story talks about school section land the state of Wyoming owns within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park and the Wyoming Governor’s threat to sell the land to the highest bidder if the federal government will not swap the land for a minerals estate of equal value or other compensation. Headlines like this are used by some organizations to suggest that our national parks are threatened and not adequately protected or funded.<br /><br />A little Grant Teton history is warranted here. According to the National Park Service history of the park, “The birth of present-day Grand Teton National Park involved controversy and a struggle that lasted several decades. Animosity toward expanding governmental control and a perceived loss of individual freedoms fueled anti-park sentiments in Jackson Hole that nearly derailed establishment of the park.” A large portion of Grand Teton was carved out of private land that had been bought up by John D. Rockefeller and later donated to the National Park Service. Unlike nearby Yellowstone National Park, the nation’s first, that was 100% federal land when it was established in 1872, Grand Teton to this day continues to have substantial tracts of privately owned land within the park boundaries.<br /><br />The tension between private land owners and the park system and the animosity generated by carving a park out of privately-held lands are very similar to what occurred in Virginia during the establishment of Shenandoah National Park and in North Carolina and Tennessee when Great Smokey National Park was established.<br /><br />Back to the fire sale in Grand Teton, because the land in Jackson Hole that became Grand Teton National Park was private property, there are also state school lands in the park that were set aside when Wyoming was granted statehood in 1890. Under the Wyoming Constitution the state is required to manage those school lands to maximize return to the school trust for education in Wyoming.<br /><br />In Grand Teton, Wyoming owns two full sections (a section is one mile square or 640 acres) of land plus one smaller 85 acre parcel. With land values in Jackson Hole at about $200,000 per acre, it is easy to see why Wyoming may be tempted to sell their land. Especially when you consider that the state currently receives about $3,000 per year in grazing lease revenue on land that may be worth more than $250 million.<br /><br />Back in 2002, Congress passed a law directing the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management to work out an exchange with Wyoming for the state lands inside the park. At the time, Wyoming wanted undeveloped minerals of equal value to the land, but valuation of undeveloped minerals is challenging and other matters of law caused that deal to bog down. Moreover, nobody really wants to have the state land sold into private ownership and that includes the residents of Wyoming who have long since realized that, despite a controversial beginning, Grand Teton is an economic engine that drives millions of dollars into Wyoming’s economy every year in the form of tourism. There is also the recognition in Wyoming that even though $250 million is not chump change, it would be quickly absorbed into the $1.4 billion per year school budget and $1.4 billion per year capital construction for schools.<br /><br />So the questions are: Will Wyoming really sell their land inside Grand Teton National Park? Is it worth $250 million to a bankrupt federal treasury to make sure Wyoming does not sell the land?<br /><br />In my opinion, the answer to the first question is “No.” I believe Wyoming’s governor is playing high stakes poker and attempting to leverage the national and international appeal of Grand Teton National Park to extract money from the feds. To answer the second question, let’s first take a look at the National Park Service annual budget and what they should be doing with the funds they are appropriated.<br /><br />As a general principle the National Park Service has enjoyed increasing budgets when other agencies have been cut. They spend more dollars per acre of land managed than any other federal land management agency. There is the perennial complaint that there is a maintenance backlog that ranges from $4-6 billion. Ironically, no matter how much more money Congress gives the park service, there seems to be no end to the backlog. You may have heard recent radio advertisements featuring actor Sam Waterston decrying the failure of the federal government to address the maintenance backlog and telling us that your national parks are falling into complete disrepair.<br /><br />A scan of annual NPS budgets over the last 10 years is illustrative. In 2000, the year George W. Bush was elected President, the NPS budget was about $2.1 billion. When Bush left office in 2009, the NPS budget was $2.9 billion. On top of those annual appropriations, over the years the Bush Administration spent more than $4 billion in additional money on the maintenance backlog. Soon after Barack Obama took office, the so-called stimulus bill allocated an additional $750 million to the National Park Service presumably to address the backlog. How many of you have seen a nearly 50% increase in your income over the last decade and were given about two years’ worth of salary to improve your home and property to boot? Most likely none of you saw that kind of boost in your personal budget, but nonetheless, I would wager that your home has been maintained and is in as good or better condition than when you bought it.<br /><br />So why can’t the National Park Service maintain our national parks on an ever increasing appropriation? First and foremost, maintenance is not very exciting, but acquiring land and building new facilities is the stuff that pads a park superintendent’s resume. Secondly, Congress keeps adding new parks to the system. Not only do new parks rarely come with new money, the added units often have ready-made maintenance backlogs as well as future commitments for construction and land acquisition.<br /><br />We are witness to this latter phenomena right here in Southside Virginia. Congressman Perriello has asked the National Park Service to study the feasibility of adding the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford to the national park system. I have seen dozens of these kinds of studies by the park service during my tenure at the Department of the Interior, and in almost every instance, the NPS will present a wonderful case for why the particular site is of national significance and should be added to the list of national parks. Buried in the conclusion of the study, you will find small and weak argument about why the system cannot afford the new unit. Few Congressmen can resist the lure and glory of adding a new park to their district and they usually ignore the fact that the system cannot afford to take on the burden of new units. But, for the good of the whole national park system, somebody in Congress should stand up and say enough.<br /><br />And by the way, until the Bush Administration made the NPS develop a system that established and validated an inventory of their assets and each asset’s condition, nobody could ever give an accurate estimate of any maintenance backlog. But that matters little to the groups, like the National Parks Conservation Association who use celebrities like Sam Waterston to bemoan the degradation of our parks, because they are more interested in whipping up a crisis and selling memberships than actually doing anything that would benefit or conserve the national park system.<br /><br />Be careful which environmental groups you support. Do your homework. Research the fact base around each issue and behind each headline. And most of all, understand the motives and tactics of the group to whom you are giving your hard-earned money. Some organizations are actually doing conservation work on the ground and others are just doing it to you.Editor--Talk It Up, Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823730489492429861noreply@blogger.com0