e-letter to Science Magazine
sent: 23 February 2005
Letter Details: N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004
Abstract: As requested by Associate Letters Editor Etta Kavanagh,
I have revised and shortened my letter below.
Letter Text:
Oreskes (1,2) presents empirical evidence that appears to show a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Oreskes also claims that this universal agreement had not been questioned even once in the peer-reviewed literature since 1993. Her assertion has been extensively reported ever since.
I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results. All abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") were assessed (3). The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years" (4).
Oreskes claims that "none of these papers argued [that current climate change is natural]". However, 44 papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (5).
The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes' results concern abstracts that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of abstracts reject what Oreskes calls the 'consensus view'. In fact, there are almost three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (6).
Even if there is disagreement about any of these papers, it is highly improbable that all 34 are ambiguous. After all, the explicit and implicit rejection is not restricted to individual scientists (7). It also includes distinguished scientific organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which formally rejects the view that anthropogenic factors are the main trigger of global warming:
"The earth's climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time" (8).
Despite this manifest scepticism, I do not wish to deny that a majority of publications goes along with the notion of anthropogenic global warming by applying models based on its basic assumptions. It is beyond doubt, however, that an unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank, which comprises almost 12,000 abstracts, will find hundreds of papers (many of which written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change". The truth is, there is no such thing!
In light of the data presented above, Science Magazine should withdraw Oreskes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.
References
1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)
2. N. Oreskes (2005) Correction. Science, Vol 307, Issue 5708, 355
3. ISI Web of Science, (http://www.webofscience.com/)
4.) Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 include abstracts. The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes, plus two categories (#7,8) which I added: 1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position; 2. evaluation of impacts; 3. mitigation proposals; 4. methods; 5. paleoclimate analysis; 6. rejection of the consensus position; 7. natural factors of global climate change; 8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change. While 29% of the documents implicitly accept the 'consensus view', these papers mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change. 470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
5.) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for "close ties between solar variations and surface climate", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: "The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies." Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405.
6.) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise "the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change"; K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67. M.E. Fernau at al. stress: "More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record. Uncertainties about the amount and rate of change of greenhouse gas emissions also make prediction of the magnitude and timing of climate change difficult", M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.
7.) "Today, proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, again claiming scientific consensus, threaten to create even greater energy market distortions at large social and economic costs." H.R. Linden (1996) The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21:31-67.
8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471.
Friday, June 3
Truth, Balance and the Idiocy of the Liberal Press
Well, at least they've admitted it at last. Liberal media journalists admit they want to report only what they perceive as truth. They're annoyed that anyone would want to question them on it or to hear all sides of a given issue.
A panel of liberal journalists and media analysts declared yesterday that news organizations should promote "truth" over "balance."
That's another way of saying that the American public is too stupid to decide wherein lies the "truth" but the intelligent media is and will decide and tell the people what it is.
"The discussion that we have to have balanced reports is kind of crazy," said Linda Foley, President of the Newspaper Guild.
Josh Silver, executive director of the Fair Press media reform organization said, "Take global warming. The US is the only developed industrialized country that still debates in the mainstream media whether or not global warming is happening." Global warming, he suggested, is an example of the truth.
Okay, let's look at what this pseudo-intellectual liberal considers "truth:"
Obviously Silver is not "up" on the issue of global warming to know about the recent world-wide survey of climate scientists and the result of that study.
In the results of a survey of climate scientists conducted in 2003 by Professor Dennis Bray of Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany, one question on the survey asked "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?"
A value of 1 indicates strongly agree and a value of 7 indicates strongly disagree. Countries, and number of responses from each country are as follows:
USA n = 372;
Canada n = 14;
Germany n = 56;
Italy n = 14;
Denmark n = 5;
Netherlands n = 4;
Sweden n = 5;
France n = 5;
U.K. n = 18;
Australia n = 21;
Norway n = 3;
Finland n = 3;
New Zealand n = 6;
Austria n = 3;
Ethiopia n = 1;
South Africa n = 3;
Poland n = 1
Switzerland n = 7;
Mexico n = 3;
Russia n = 1;
Argentina n = 1;
India n = 3;
Spain n = 2
Japan n = 3;
Brazil n = 1;
Taiwan n = 1;
Bulgaria n = 1
To the question posed above there were 530 valid responses. Descriptive statistics are as follows:
Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median = 3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84;
Variance = 3.386
Frequencies:
1 strongly agree 50 (9.4% of valid responses)
2 134 (25.3% of valid responses)
3 112 (21.1% of valid responses)
4 75 (14.2% of valid responses)
5 45 (8.5% of valid responses)
6 60 (10.8% valid responses)
7 strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of valid responses)
These results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong and only 9.4% of the respondents strongly agree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. This is however, a slight rise in consensus of the same survey conducted in 1996 [4] that resulted in a mean of 4.1683 to the same question (Five countries USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark only in 1996 survey, N = 511).
So actually more scientists world-wide believe that global warming is not caused by man and most of the scientists are somewhere in the middle. Those, I suspect, are the ones most influenced by economic issues (grants to prove global warming is caused by hydrocarbons, etc.) and by media hype.
The area of global warming, it seems, is an area where the media, for reasons of its own, has decided where the truth lies -- in direct opposition to what is actually true.
The liberals on the panel were highly "put out" by the fact that the public wants to know exactly what is happening, good and bad, true and false, rather than being spoon fed opinions. Their arrogance in even daring to state these things publicly shows how far down the road of media dictatorship we've gone.
Their laziness in reporting only one side of issues should be grounds for dismissal and banishment from the profession (at least it WAS a profession) of journalism. Too bad we can't take them to court, convict them for biased reporting and intellectual snobbism and banish them to a deserted. preferably barren island somewhere in Indonesia.
A panel of liberal journalists and media analysts declared yesterday that news organizations should promote "truth" over "balance."
That's another way of saying that the American public is too stupid to decide wherein lies the "truth" but the intelligent media is and will decide and tell the people what it is.
"The discussion that we have to have balanced reports is kind of crazy," said Linda Foley, President of the Newspaper Guild.
Josh Silver, executive director of the Fair Press media reform organization said, "Take global warming. The US is the only developed industrialized country that still debates in the mainstream media whether or not global warming is happening." Global warming, he suggested, is an example of the truth.
Okay, let's look at what this pseudo-intellectual liberal considers "truth:"
Obviously Silver is not "up" on the issue of global warming to know about the recent world-wide survey of climate scientists and the result of that study.
In the results of a survey of climate scientists conducted in 2003 by Professor Dennis Bray of Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany, one question on the survey asked "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?"
A value of 1 indicates strongly agree and a value of 7 indicates strongly disagree. Countries, and number of responses from each country are as follows:
USA n = 372;
Canada n = 14;
Germany n = 56;
Italy n = 14;
Denmark n = 5;
Netherlands n = 4;
Sweden n = 5;
France n = 5;
U.K. n = 18;
Australia n = 21;
Norway n = 3;
Finland n = 3;
New Zealand n = 6;
Austria n = 3;
Ethiopia n = 1;
South Africa n = 3;
Poland n = 1
Switzerland n = 7;
Mexico n = 3;
Russia n = 1;
Argentina n = 1;
India n = 3;
Spain n = 2
Japan n = 3;
Brazil n = 1;
Taiwan n = 1;
Bulgaria n = 1
To the question posed above there were 530 valid responses. Descriptive statistics are as follows:
Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median = 3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84;
Variance = 3.386
Frequencies:
1 strongly agree 50 (9.4% of valid responses)
2 134 (25.3% of valid responses)
3 112 (21.1% of valid responses)
4 75 (14.2% of valid responses)
5 45 (8.5% of valid responses)
6 60 (10.8% valid responses)
7 strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of valid responses)
These results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong and only 9.4% of the respondents strongly agree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. This is however, a slight rise in consensus of the same survey conducted in 1996 [4] that resulted in a mean of 4.1683 to the same question (Five countries USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark only in 1996 survey, N = 511).
So actually more scientists world-wide believe that global warming is not caused by man and most of the scientists are somewhere in the middle. Those, I suspect, are the ones most influenced by economic issues (grants to prove global warming is caused by hydrocarbons, etc.) and by media hype.
The area of global warming, it seems, is an area where the media, for reasons of its own, has decided where the truth lies -- in direct opposition to what is actually true.
The liberals on the panel were highly "put out" by the fact that the public wants to know exactly what is happening, good and bad, true and false, rather than being spoon fed opinions. Their arrogance in even daring to state these things publicly shows how far down the road of media dictatorship we've gone.
Their laziness in reporting only one side of issues should be grounds for dismissal and banishment from the profession (at least it WAS a profession) of journalism. Too bad we can't take them to court, convict them for biased reporting and intellectual snobbism and banish them to a deserted. preferably barren island somewhere in Indonesia.
Thursday, June 2
Another World
I grew up in a very different America from the one that exists now. A cleaner, safer and all-around much nicer America. An e-mail I received today brought on these musings, which I'll present here. Then I'll add the relevant portion of the e-mail that inspired these thoughts.
When I was a child, the world was involved in all-out war, World War II. My Dad was production manager of a defense plant owned by my Uncle. (Dad had served in France in WWI.) Dozens of my cousins and uncles were at war and I was, along with the rest of the nation, too.
We children collected cans, bottles, jars, even chewing gum wrappers (which were then made of tinfoil) for "the war effort." We earned money with our summer lemonade stands and baby-watching (I was too young to baby sit until after the war was over but was paid nickles and dimes for watching my baby cousins while we were all under the watchful eyes of adults).
We took those dimes to school and bought defense stamps, which we saved in books. The books were eventually exchanged for defense bonds. Our money went to the government to pay for planes and bombs. We were proud that we were able to contribute in some small way to make the world free from tyranny of the Nazis and Japanese.
We kids had an immense amount of freedom. No one was afraid to go out at night, even when we traveled to the big cities like Washington DC or New York. I remember riding the subway at night, dashing on first to save seats for the others. Although like most children, we had curfews, it wasn't because of fear.
With the world at war we knew air raid drills and sugar and gas shortages. We stayed home willingly and used food stamps gratefully, sadly aware that others in the world weren't as fortunate as we and thankful for our safe lives.
And we were so proud to be Americans. We didn't talk about the war and our soldiers were careful not to mention where they were or what they were doing. "Loose lips sink ships," we believed, and we didn't WANT to know anything that might endanger our troops.
Even we kids read the reports in the newspapers and heard HV Kaltenborn on the radio. We were so proud that our country could help save the world from fascism and looked forward to the day when all the world was free.
Hollywood made movies about the war, romantic stories we could identify with, about the men and women who went to war, their adventures and the families they left behind. Every movie showed the same pride we felt.
Even movie stars who lived "free love" syle lives kept their private lives quiet and appeared in public as beautifully coiffed and dressed, well-mannered, soft-spoken and kind. They were careful of their images for fear the public would shun them.
It was a beautiful world. God Bless America, even the sad imitation it is now instead of the strong, willing, proud nation it once was.
When I was a child, the world was involved in all-out war, World War II. My Dad was production manager of a defense plant owned by my Uncle. (Dad had served in France in WWI.) Dozens of my cousins and uncles were at war and I was, along with the rest of the nation, too.
We children collected cans, bottles, jars, even chewing gum wrappers (which were then made of tinfoil) for "the war effort." We earned money with our summer lemonade stands and baby-watching (I was too young to baby sit until after the war was over but was paid nickles and dimes for watching my baby cousins while we were all under the watchful eyes of adults).
We took those dimes to school and bought defense stamps, which we saved in books. The books were eventually exchanged for defense bonds. Our money went to the government to pay for planes and bombs. We were proud that we were able to contribute in some small way to make the world free from tyranny of the Nazis and Japanese.
We kids had an immense amount of freedom. No one was afraid to go out at night, even when we traveled to the big cities like Washington DC or New York. I remember riding the subway at night, dashing on first to save seats for the others. Although like most children, we had curfews, it wasn't because of fear.
With the world at war we knew air raid drills and sugar and gas shortages. We stayed home willingly and used food stamps gratefully, sadly aware that others in the world weren't as fortunate as we and thankful for our safe lives.
And we were so proud to be Americans. We didn't talk about the war and our soldiers were careful not to mention where they were or what they were doing. "Loose lips sink ships," we believed, and we didn't WANT to know anything that might endanger our troops.
Even we kids read the reports in the newspapers and heard HV Kaltenborn on the radio. We were so proud that our country could help save the world from fascism and looked forward to the day when all the world was free.
Hollywood made movies about the war, romantic stories we could identify with, about the men and women who went to war, their adventures and the families they left behind. Every movie showed the same pride we felt.
Let me tell you what my America was like. For those of you under 40, it may come as a revelation.
· In my America, there was prayer in the schools, crèches in public parks at Christmas (in fact, sales people actually wished you a "Merry Christmas," instead of the generic, secularized "happy holiday"), and universal respect for individuals who were reverently referred to a "men of the cloth." Hollywood celebrated faith with classics like "The Song of Bernadette," "Going My Way," "The Ten Commandments" and "Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison."
· Instead of half-naked, writhing celebrities and smirking savages with pistols larger than their brains, we had athletes, warriors, champions of justice and people of faith as heroes. (In terms of role models, we've gone from Audie Murphy to Eddie Murphy.)
Even movie stars who lived "free love" syle lives kept their private lives quiet and appeared in public as beautifully coiffed and dressed, well-mannered, soft-spoken and kind. They were careful of their images for fear the public would shun them.
· It was universally acknowledged that sex should be reserved for marriage. Those who lived together without the benefit of a marriage license weren't called a "cohabitating couple." It was said they were "shacking up" or "fornicating." The product of their "illicit" relationships weren't "born out-of-wedlock;" they were bastards (a judgment on the parents, not the children).
· Pornography was limited to the shadow world -- to paperbacks and magazines surreptitiously sold under the counter, or arriving in the mail in a plain-brown wrapper. Parents could be assured that children wouldn't encounter sex before the appropriate time. Society treated this volatile aspect of human nature cautiously and respectfully, not as a lurid national pastime that pervades every aspect of our lives. Virginity and fidelity were prized. Indiscretion, promiscuity and adultery were condemned.
· Addiction, too, was limited to society's fringes, to social outcasts. Provisions were made for the treatment -- or incarceration -- of the unfortunates who became slaves to narcotics. But we didn't cater to them by facilitating their addiction, in the name of disease control or compassion.
· Immigrants (who were here legally) were humbly grateful to reside in the greatest nation on earth. They understood that it was their responsibility to learn our language and history and identify with us -- in short to Americanize. Instead of making demands, they accepted obligations.
· In general, our society was more oriented toward responsibilities than rights. The mark of an American wasn't a hand outstretched, palm up, but a shoulder for bearing burdens. Instead of whiny demands, we gratefully accepted duties.
· Crime was an anomaly. In small towns, people frequently went away for the weekend without locking their doors. Except for certain disreputable sections, the streets of our cities were safe for women, even at night. Girls weren't abducted, raped and buried alive in landfills. The rights of the accused were minimal.
· Expressions like "no-fault divorce," "casual sex," "recreational drugs," "undocumented workers," "same-sex couples," "trophy wives," "gender-neutral," "racial profiling," "affirmative action," "church-state separation," "victimless crimes," "sex-industry workers," "symbolic speech," "sexually transmitted diseases," "non-judgmentalism," and "revisionist history" were blessedly unknown.
· Homosexuality was treated as a grievous sin -- or a mental disorder (depending on your perspective) -- not as an innate characteristic conferring minority status. Before they became "gay," homosexuals weren't hated; they were pitied. But they weren't allowed to turn the social order upside down to enhance their self-esteem.
· The FBI, Boy Scouts, police, firemen, military and clergy were respected. Degenerates, parasites, misfits, mutants and whiners were not.
· Americans knew their history, celebrated their past and revered their heroes. They weren't consumed with guilt for the mistakes of the past. Everyone knew that slavery was a great wrong and the Indians got a raw deal. We also knew that slavery was a universal institution and we weren't the first people to clash with an indigenous population. We understood that America's faults were minor and -- on balance -- the blessings we bestowed on humanity far outweighed our mistakes.
· We weren't obsessed with our image abroad -- whether foreigners loved us. We were willing to accept the animosity of the envious and the hatred of our enemies as part of the natural order. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we didn't ask if we had brought this on ourselves by our ghastly treatment of a nation of ruthless warmongers. FDR didn't proclaim that our mission was to bring democracy to the Germans and Japanese (that was a side effect). It was to kill Japanese and Germans and to keep killing them until they stopped killing Chinese and Filipinos, and Jews and Poles and went back where they belonged. The idea of Americans agonizing over whether Mein Kampf was treated disrespectfully in a POW camp for Germans is ludicrous.
· We weren't "multi-cultural." There was one culture -- Anglo-Saxon, Protestant -- to which others were expected to conform. This didn't mean that Jews, Catholics, blacks or Asians, considered themselves less American than those of Mayflower descent. But it was universally acknowledged that America was founded on the heritage of Western civilization, as amplified and transmitted by England.
My America worked. We saved civilization from repeated barbarian onslaughts. We were the arsenal of democracy -- the workshop of the world. Our prosperity lifted boats across the globe. We were happy, self-confident and proud.
And look at us now. We're like a dysfunctional family of 268 million, bordered by two oceans.
It was a beautiful world. God Bless America, even the sad imitation it is now instead of the strong, willing, proud nation it once was.
Wednesday, June 1
Deep Throat
So now we know who 'Deep Throat' is!
And all the world is saying, "So what?"
The Right seems to be lining up to condemn him and the Left (those few who are old enough to remember and to care)are ready with their praise.
I suppose this time I have to agree with the leftists. No, I don't think that what he did was ethical or moral but I do think it was right, necessary and it should have been done. Really, he did it the only way he could. The fact that it brought down a President is the fault of the President, not his.
After all, Nixon didn't do anything that Kennedy hadn't done before him. Or Eisenhower or any other President, for that matter. All Nixon did was make the mistake of covering up to protect his friends. But because his friends had committed a crime, that was a bad idea.
Nixon not only did not order the break-in, he didn't even know about the attempt to bug Democratic headquarters and the planting of spies in Democratic campaign staffs until it all became public knowledge -- that is, AFTER "Deep Throat" did his little bit of dirty work.
What Nixon should have done was to say, "You made a mistake. I didn't order it and I didn't have anything to do with it so you can burn boys, burn." He chose, however, to try to protect his friends. That is understandable and there's even a certain honor in it, just as there would have been honor in "Deep Throat" keeping his big mouth shut. He was, after all, second to the top in the FBI. He had taken an oath; his loyalty was trusted even if he was passed over for promotion.
However, it was best for the country for "Deep Throat" to blow the proverbial whistle and although he could have done it differently, he did it in the most effective way. Certainly if he had done it another way he wouldn't have the monetary leverage he will have now that he has "outed" himself.
That brings me to another point: I'm no fan of the Washington Post but I do think they showed great restraint and great character in keeping the secret as they promised. I think it was shabby of "Deep Throat" (you notice, I hope, that I have restrained from using his correct name so far -- I'm embarrassed for him) to go behind Bob Woodward's back and give Vanity Fair the story when he decided to cash in on his identity. That was Woodward's story and Woodward deserved first crack at it. An honorable man would have given it to him.
"Deep Throat" and his family are obvious opportunists. It's painfully clear now that it wasn't the country that he was concerned about or ethics in government. He was, and is, just a petty little government pipsqueak out for revenge. He was wise to keep quiet all these years -- it has only been recently that the nation has lost enough of its morality to be able to honor such a person.
Watergate was the height of stupidity and immorality from start to finish. The nation was and is well rid of the people involved. It cleaned up the Republican party pretty effectively but did nothing to help the Democrats, who have proceeded to elect the likes of the Clintons, Barney Franks, John Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy et al again and again because of the mote in their own collective eye.
What the Democratic Party needs is to get caught -- they need their own "Deep Throat." Trouble is, those (like Vince Foster, Victor Raiser, Susan Coleman, Paul Wilcher and more) met untimely deaths. That's one more thing Republicans have over Democrats -- they are not murderers.
And all the world is saying, "So what?"
The Right seems to be lining up to condemn him and the Left (those few who are old enough to remember and to care)are ready with their praise.
I suppose this time I have to agree with the leftists. No, I don't think that what he did was ethical or moral but I do think it was right, necessary and it should have been done. Really, he did it the only way he could. The fact that it brought down a President is the fault of the President, not his.
After all, Nixon didn't do anything that Kennedy hadn't done before him. Or Eisenhower or any other President, for that matter. All Nixon did was make the mistake of covering up to protect his friends. But because his friends had committed a crime, that was a bad idea.
Nixon not only did not order the break-in, he didn't even know about the attempt to bug Democratic headquarters and the planting of spies in Democratic campaign staffs until it all became public knowledge -- that is, AFTER "Deep Throat" did his little bit of dirty work.
What Nixon should have done was to say, "You made a mistake. I didn't order it and I didn't have anything to do with it so you can burn boys, burn." He chose, however, to try to protect his friends. That is understandable and there's even a certain honor in it, just as there would have been honor in "Deep Throat" keeping his big mouth shut. He was, after all, second to the top in the FBI. He had taken an oath; his loyalty was trusted even if he was passed over for promotion.
However, it was best for the country for "Deep Throat" to blow the proverbial whistle and although he could have done it differently, he did it in the most effective way. Certainly if he had done it another way he wouldn't have the monetary leverage he will have now that he has "outed" himself.
That brings me to another point: I'm no fan of the Washington Post but I do think they showed great restraint and great character in keeping the secret as they promised. I think it was shabby of "Deep Throat" (you notice, I hope, that I have restrained from using his correct name so far -- I'm embarrassed for him) to go behind Bob Woodward's back and give Vanity Fair the story when he decided to cash in on his identity. That was Woodward's story and Woodward deserved first crack at it. An honorable man would have given it to him.
"Deep Throat" and his family are obvious opportunists. It's painfully clear now that it wasn't the country that he was concerned about or ethics in government. He was, and is, just a petty little government pipsqueak out for revenge. He was wise to keep quiet all these years -- it has only been recently that the nation has lost enough of its morality to be able to honor such a person.
Watergate was the height of stupidity and immorality from start to finish. The nation was and is well rid of the people involved. It cleaned up the Republican party pretty effectively but did nothing to help the Democrats, who have proceeded to elect the likes of the Clintons, Barney Franks, John Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy et al again and again because of the mote in their own collective eye.
What the Democratic Party needs is to get caught -- they need their own "Deep Throat." Trouble is, those (like Vince Foster, Victor Raiser, Susan Coleman, Paul Wilcher and more) met untimely deaths. That's one more thing Republicans have over Democrats -- they are not murderers.
Tuesday, May 31
WMD Found In Iraq
Why is this a surprise?
And why hasn't it been picked up by the mainstream media, since it was published in European presses on the 17th of May?
Sarin, developed in the 1930s, is the the deadly nerve agent that killed 12 people and injured 5 000 others in a Tokyo subway in March 1995. It is 500 times more powerful than cyanide, and was used to kill millions in the gas chambers of Nazi death camps in the closing stages of World War 2.
What are the Dems going to do when these weapons begin to show up, apologize to the President for calling him a liar? There's not a man or woman big enough to do that in the whole party. It's going to be interesting to see how they dance around this one.
And why hasn't it been picked up by the mainstream media, since it was published in European presses on the 17th of May?
Sarin: 1st WMD found in Iraq
17/05/2004 17:48 - (SA)
Baghdad, Iraq - A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent exploded near a US military convoy in Baghdad, the US military said on Monday. It was the first confirmed finding of any of the banned weapons upon which the United States based its case for the Iraq war.
"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155mm artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesperson in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a US force convoy.
"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said. The incident occurred "a couple of days ago", he said. Two US soldiers were treated for minor injuries, Kimmitt added.
Sarin, developed in the 1930s, is the the deadly nerve agent that killed 12 people and injured 5 000 others in a Tokyo subway in March 1995. It is 500 times more powerful than cyanide, and was used to kill millions in the gas chambers of Nazi death camps in the closing stages of World War 2.
Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said the 155mm round had been rigged as a roadside bomb and was discovered by a passing US convoy.
"Two explosive ordnance team members were treated for minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round," Kimmitt told a press conference in Baghdad.
He said that the deadly agent was produced after two chemicals in separate sections of the shell mixed after it was fired.
"Mixing and dispersal of the agent from such a projectile as an IED (improvised explosive device) is very limited," he said. "The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece."
"The former regime had declared all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war."
He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited. Many of the materials used for roadside bombs are believed to have been looted from arsenals after the collapse of the regime in April 2003.
What are the Dems going to do when these weapons begin to show up, apologize to the President for calling him a liar? There's not a man or woman big enough to do that in the whole party. It's going to be interesting to see how they dance around this one.
Associated Press Gold Star Mother Story Is A Lie
You all know that I do not believe an immigrant who has not pledged her allegiance to the United States by becoming naturalized should be allowed to join the Gold Star Mothers.
Turns out, however, that there was much, much more to that story than was reported by the press. Why does that not surprise me -- it's CBS and the New York Times all over again.
Statement Regarding National Media Attention Concerning Ligaya Lagman And "The Denial Of A Gold Star."
That's really lovely, people. I'm not so proud to be an American when my countrymen do things like that. For Shame...all of you who would turn on that group, whether you think they are wrong or not. There's no excuse for that kind of behavior.
Turns out, however, that there was much, much more to that story than was reported by the press. Why does that not surprise me -- it's CBS and the New York Times all over again.
Statement Regarding National Media Attention Concerning Ligaya Lagman And "The Denial Of A Gold Star."
The term "gold star" is a term used to recognize the family member of a serviceman or servicewoman who has died in the line of service to their country. As protocol states, the Department of Defense presents to the family, a gold star lapel button, in accordance with each branch of the military's protocol. The gold star lapel button is not issued by the American Gold Star Mothers, Inc.
As to the accusation that Mrs. Lagman's application was denied does not tell the complete story. The application for membership with American Gold Star Mothers was received by the Department of New York. It was not completed or signed by the applicant, nor did it have the required copy of the death certificate and the payment of the first years dues. There were several inaccuracies on the application as to the dates required. A certified letter was mailed to Mrs. Lagman requesting the application be completed in full and returned for approval. To date, we have not heard from Mrs. Lagman, nor have we received any form of communication to the status of her membership application.
To say that the application has been denied is not an accurate statement.
It is also true that the constitution and bylaws of the organization’s founder, Mrs. Grace Darling Seibold, established in 1928, along with fellow charter members, named the organization 'American Gold Star Mothers.'
In Article IV, Section 1 under Eligiblity and Membership states:
"Natural Mothers, or citizens of the United States or the Territorial and Insular Possessions of the United States, (italics mine) at the time of their sons or daughters induction into the United States Armed Forces and died as a casualty, killed, captured, missing in action, or as a result of illness or injury received through engagement in the Armed Forces in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Afganistan, and other Strategic Areas.
On June 12, 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed and approved a charter for the American Gold Star Mothers, Inc. granted by the 98th Congress of the United States of America, which states under Powers, Section 2:
"American Gold Star Mothers, Inc. shall have only those powers granted to it though it’s bylaws and articles of incorporation filed in the state or states which is incorporated and subject to the laws of such state or states."
As Congress has dictated above, by it's issuance of the federal charter, by virtue of its name, shall be recognized as "American Gold Star Mothers, Inc."
In the article there is mention to the fact that the membership board voted and discriminated against Mrs. Lagman. It was not a vote taken for membership, nor a change in the constitution. It was only from an outside source that the discussion took place regarding an upcoming applicant situation, and at that time, the board decided not to make an exception to the rule without proper investigation.
American Gold Star Mothers is an all-volunteer 501.c.3 organization with no federal funding or benefits from any government agency. Its only means of income is from membership dues and donations. They are grateful for the outpouring of support from other Veterans Service Organizations over the years who have worked closely with the Mothers, and knows their only honorable intentions comes from the heart.
The Executive Board would like to take this opportunity to apologize for anything taken out of its context in the dissemination of information while being investigated by the media and improperly reported. They would also appreciate the time to seek a remedy to this situation and handle it internally so that the best interests of all, and to future Mothers, can be addressed.
American Gold Star Mothers have received threats, malicious accusations, and disturbing e-mails, phone calls, and faxes. This organization of moms joined to support each other and also to support the veterans who are fortunate to come home. They have spent the last 77 years devoting their time and energy in service to the Veterans Administration, volunteering in VA Hospitals and nursing homes, accruing millions of hours helping those who honorably served their country.
That's really lovely, people. I'm not so proud to be an American when my countrymen do things like that. For Shame...all of you who would turn on that group, whether you think they are wrong or not. There's no excuse for that kind of behavior.
Monday, May 30
So What Are We Going To Do About Washington Popinjays?
You know how it is when you read something and think, "Yes. That's just how I feel but I hadn't thought about it enough to articulate it?"
That's exactly how I felt when I read Peggy Noonan's latest column in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal (Mr. Narcissus Goes To Washington) online this morning -- especially when she wrote, about public servants and heroes: "People who charge into burning towers are heroic; nuns who work with the poorest of the poor are self-denying; people who volunteer their time to help our world and receive nothing in return but the knowledge they are doing good are in public service. Politicians are in politics. They are less self-denying than self-aggrandizing. (italics mine) They are given fame, respect, the best health care in the world; they pass laws governing your life and receive a million perks including a good salary, and someone else--faceless taxpayers, "the folks back home"--gets to pay for the whole thing. This isn't public service, it's more like public command. It's not terrible--democracies need people who commit politics; they have a place and a role to play--but it's not saintly, either."
I could stand up and cheer at that one! Amen, say I. And hallelujah, someone else has noticed it, too.
Just try to influence your Senators and Congresspeople, for example. We elected those people to be our voice -- and, yes, I understand that they will simply consider one voice and not necessarily act on it. But what if you get together a group of like voices and try to influence that way. Folks, it doesn't work!
These people don't consider themselves voices of their constituents (and by the way, since the votes of people in both houses of Congress affect all the people, why do they not consider ALL of us across the country their constituency? We can -- and do -- affect their elections even if we don't live in their districts. We do that by contributing to campaigns, as in the Daschle defeat of 2004.
These people we send to Congress too obviously care only about themselves rather than their constituents OR the country. The little charade that has been going on in the Senate these past weeks is blatant evidence of that.
I love Noonan's interpretation of the Senator from South Carolina's speech: "Lindsey Graham, who said, 'I know there will be folks back home who will be angry, but that's only because they're not as sophisticated and high-minded as I am. Actually they're rather stupid, which is why they're not in the Senate and I am. But I have 3 1/2 years to charm them out of their narrow-minded resentments, and watch me, baby.'
Oh, excuse me, that's not what he said. That's only what he meant. It was the invisible scroll as he spoke. The CNN identifier that popped up beneath his head as he chattered, however, did say, "Conceited Nitwit Who Affects 'Back Home' Accent to Confuse the Boobs.'
Oh wait, that's not what it said. It said, 'R-South Carolina.' My bad."
As an American citizen I'm tired of being patronized and treated like my Senators and Congressmen think I'm a "boob." I'll match my IQ, my education and my experience with any of them on "The Hill" and dare them to look down on me. I'm tired of receiving form letters and being told that when a number of my fellow constituents e-mail a Senator or Congressman that their e-mails are considered "spam" rather than taken for what they are: expressions of sincere, thoughtful opinion by voters.
It's time we Americans took the country back from the politicians. I honestly don't know how we'll get anyone decent and honest to run in their places because of what the media does to candidates, but it's time we got together and made the effort.
Peggy Noonan wrote, "I personally was dazzled by their refusal to bow to the counsels of common sense and proportion, and stirred that they had no fear of justified insult ('blowhard,' 'puffed up popinjay') as they moved forward in the halls of the United States Senate to bravely proclaim their excellence."
It's obvious from the condition of the country that these self-aggrandizing pipsqueaks need to be replaced. And this isn't a party issue, either -- one's as bad as the other. Have we learned that the ballot box doesn't work? Is it time for a revolution?
That's exactly how I felt when I read Peggy Noonan's latest column in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal (Mr. Narcissus Goes To Washington) online this morning -- especially when she wrote, about public servants and heroes: "People who charge into burning towers are heroic; nuns who work with the poorest of the poor are self-denying; people who volunteer their time to help our world and receive nothing in return but the knowledge they are doing good are in public service. Politicians are in politics. They are less self-denying than self-aggrandizing. (italics mine) They are given fame, respect, the best health care in the world; they pass laws governing your life and receive a million perks including a good salary, and someone else--faceless taxpayers, "the folks back home"--gets to pay for the whole thing. This isn't public service, it's more like public command. It's not terrible--democracies need people who commit politics; they have a place and a role to play--but it's not saintly, either."
I could stand up and cheer at that one! Amen, say I. And hallelujah, someone else has noticed it, too.
Just try to influence your Senators and Congresspeople, for example. We elected those people to be our voice -- and, yes, I understand that they will simply consider one voice and not necessarily act on it. But what if you get together a group of like voices and try to influence that way. Folks, it doesn't work!
These people don't consider themselves voices of their constituents (and by the way, since the votes of people in both houses of Congress affect all the people, why do they not consider ALL of us across the country their constituency? We can -- and do -- affect their elections even if we don't live in their districts. We do that by contributing to campaigns, as in the Daschle defeat of 2004.
These people we send to Congress too obviously care only about themselves rather than their constituents OR the country. The little charade that has been going on in the Senate these past weeks is blatant evidence of that.
I love Noonan's interpretation of the Senator from South Carolina's speech: "Lindsey Graham, who said, 'I know there will be folks back home who will be angry, but that's only because they're not as sophisticated and high-minded as I am. Actually they're rather stupid, which is why they're not in the Senate and I am. But I have 3 1/2 years to charm them out of their narrow-minded resentments, and watch me, baby.'
Oh, excuse me, that's not what he said. That's only what he meant. It was the invisible scroll as he spoke. The CNN identifier that popped up beneath his head as he chattered, however, did say, "Conceited Nitwit Who Affects 'Back Home' Accent to Confuse the Boobs.'
Oh wait, that's not what it said. It said, 'R-South Carolina.' My bad."
As an American citizen I'm tired of being patronized and treated like my Senators and Congressmen think I'm a "boob." I'll match my IQ, my education and my experience with any of them on "The Hill" and dare them to look down on me. I'm tired of receiving form letters and being told that when a number of my fellow constituents e-mail a Senator or Congressman that their e-mails are considered "spam" rather than taken for what they are: expressions of sincere, thoughtful opinion by voters.
It's time we Americans took the country back from the politicians. I honestly don't know how we'll get anyone decent and honest to run in their places because of what the media does to candidates, but it's time we got together and made the effort.
Peggy Noonan wrote, "I personally was dazzled by their refusal to bow to the counsels of common sense and proportion, and stirred that they had no fear of justified insult ('blowhard,' 'puffed up popinjay') as they moved forward in the halls of the United States Senate to bravely proclaim their excellence."
It's obvious from the condition of the country that these self-aggrandizing pipsqueaks need to be replaced. And this isn't a party issue, either -- one's as bad as the other. Have we learned that the ballot box doesn't work? Is it time for a revolution?
Saturday, May 28
No Shame for Gold Star Mothers
There's an interesting blog on GOP Insight this morning, taking to task the Gold Star Mothers organization for refusing to honor the application of a mother whose son died in Afghanistan, but who is not an American citizen. The mother isn't a citizen, that is. It seems she has lived here for 20 or so years and has not chosen citizenship.
The author of the blog is highly critical of the Gold Star Mothers group for rejecting her application. I'm not sure that I agree with the blog writer.
I'm a blue star mother who is thankful every day that the star in my window is blue rather than gold. I'm doubly thankful that I'll be able to take the star down soon when my son retires after long service in the Air Force.
I agree that the soldier who died, Army Staff Sgt. Anthony Lagman, deserves the highest honor, love and respect of his countrymen. I agree with the writer of the blog who wrote, "It does not matter where these men and women come from, their background, their age, their nationality, race, religion, etc. They sacrifice life for their countrymen to ensure that the freedoms we enjoy are preserved, even if they will not get to enjoy the fruits of their labor any longer."
I also agree with Ann Herd, president of Gold Star Mothers, who "said that the organization cannot go changing its rules "every time we turn around." The organization would have accepted Mrs. Lagman if she had accepted the United States and was a citizen.
Who knows what Mrs. lagman's relationship with her son was. We don't know. But we can assume that she didn't value the country much because she never took the time to become a citizen. That's something that isn't that hard to do: you take a few classes to learn something of the history of the country, its values and its society. You learn how the government works and how you can participate. You don't even have to learn the English language -- but you have to take the time and make the effort and then you have to pledge your allegiance to America.
Ms. Lagman didn't think that was important. Possibly she was angry with her son when he went to war; possibly she didn't support him at all. Maybe she did -- but since she has shown no personal allegiance to the country and since her son may very well have served against her wishes, I support the decision of Gold Star Mothers not to accept her application. I'm sure they would reconsider if she decided to become a citizen.
Gold Star Mothers doesn't honor the son; it honors the mother.
The author of the blog is highly critical of the Gold Star Mothers group for rejecting her application. I'm not sure that I agree with the blog writer.
I'm a blue star mother who is thankful every day that the star in my window is blue rather than gold. I'm doubly thankful that I'll be able to take the star down soon when my son retires after long service in the Air Force.
I agree that the soldier who died, Army Staff Sgt. Anthony Lagman, deserves the highest honor, love and respect of his countrymen. I agree with the writer of the blog who wrote, "It does not matter where these men and women come from, their background, their age, their nationality, race, religion, etc. They sacrifice life for their countrymen to ensure that the freedoms we enjoy are preserved, even if they will not get to enjoy the fruits of their labor any longer."
I also agree with Ann Herd, president of Gold Star Mothers, who "said that the organization cannot go changing its rules "every time we turn around." The organization would have accepted Mrs. Lagman if she had accepted the United States and was a citizen.
Who knows what Mrs. lagman's relationship with her son was. We don't know. But we can assume that she didn't value the country much because she never took the time to become a citizen. That's something that isn't that hard to do: you take a few classes to learn something of the history of the country, its values and its society. You learn how the government works and how you can participate. You don't even have to learn the English language -- but you have to take the time and make the effort and then you have to pledge your allegiance to America.
Ms. Lagman didn't think that was important. Possibly she was angry with her son when he went to war; possibly she didn't support him at all. Maybe she did -- but since she has shown no personal allegiance to the country and since her son may very well have served against her wishes, I support the decision of Gold Star Mothers not to accept her application. I'm sure they would reconsider if she decided to become a citizen.
Gold Star Mothers doesn't honor the son; it honors the mother.
Friday, May 27
Taking Browne Down
It's downright cowardly to post opinions on a blog without allowing comment on them. That's what this fellow called Harry Browne has done. He says he has too many things going right now and doesn't have time for responses but he'll read e-mail. If he's THAT busy, he'll just delete e-mail and no one will see your carefully researched and thought-out responses so I've decided to post mine publicly. I'll quote his statements directly (and put them in italics) and answer each with mine.
Browne writes: "National Sales Tax: I've been opposed to the idea of a national sales tax from the first time I heard of it — so long as it does not involve a dramatic reduction in federal spending. Without a reduction in spending, it is just rearranging the burden of big government (which is also the case for any tax cut that doesn't involve a reduction in spending). And thus is a complete waste of our time and effort if we support it." Yes, government spending should be cut but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Tax collection and tax spending are two entirely different issues. HOW taxes are collected does not affect how government spends the money.
"I've said that, once the poor have been made exempt and all the politically strongest industries have exempted their products from the tax, the rate will have to be at least 30% — and probably even more than that. Because of this, it's very unlikely that the tax will ever even be enacted."
"People who say it can't be done should get out of the way of those who are doing it" Chinese Proverb.
Under the FairTax the poor are not exempt. No one is exempt from anything, which is one of its strong points. With FairTax, everyone pays the same amount on new goods, approximately what we're paying now. However, everyone gets a rebate to keep everyone from paying tax of any kind up to the poverty level. It's a great idea -- NO ONE pays taxes up to the poverty level.
"Now Bryan Russel has written to me to provide a number of other reasons to shun the idea of a national sales tax. Here's some of what he said:• It would hurt the economy because it would be an incentive for people not to buy new products, but to buy used items instead (garage sales etc.) to avoid the huge tax." This argument is an un-thinkiing one. Take new cars, for example. Everyone knows that when you drive a new car off the lot, it depreciates in value by some 20% or more immediately, before you even park it in your driveway. Also, you could rent a new car for less than you can buy one. Neither fact has hurt new car sales at all. People still buy new cars for many reasons that have nothing to do with saving money: They can afford it, or they like the smell of a new car, or they're wealthy and want to show off their wealth. (Like buying a new Cadillac every year!)
"• Immediate criminal element in all retailing. Can you say "black markets"?! " Do we have a huge black market in new cars? The same analogy works here.
"• Endless companies lobbying for their product to be tax exempt or at a reduced tax because it is environmentally friendly or is produced by a minority owned company, etc. In short, we would end up with a complicated sales tax code similar to the income tax mess." Read my lips -- NO exemptions. No need to lobby because there are NO exemptions. The fact that the current income tax has those is what has prompted this move to the FairTax in the first place. Besides, when companies are not taxed on their production, they have a built-in incentive to produce more.
"• We might end up having to carry "tax I.D. cards" because sooner or later the politicians would decide that poor people should pay at a lower rate and maybe rich people would pay at a higher rate." "We might" have to fly to the moon for breakfast, too. "We might" is meaningless fop. Do you have a social security card? That's all you need to get your prebate. Poor people pay less tax because they spend less money. The wealthy buy mansions instead of houses, are dressed by Lagerfeld and Versace instead of Penney's and Dillards. They travel in lear jets, jags and limousines instead of Chevys and Toyotas to places like Monaco instead of Las Vegas. Donald Trump is not going to suddenly start buying at WalMart to save money. Part of the fun of being wealthy is showing off, living high, and spending the money.
"• We would need to keep records of how much sales tax we pay — to make sure someone who is making $200,000.00 a year is not paying only $500 in sales tax and thus must be "cheating" by buying things in the new black market or whatever."
With FairTax only merchants keep records on the tax -- they do that for state taxes now, anyway. And they are repaid a quarter of !% on the dollar for being the middleman. It's easy for everyone to know just exactly how much they do pay because it's right there on the sales slip but it's already paid.
As for tax evasion -- sure. Some people will find a way to evade some taxes. If a person is a crook, changing the tax structure isn't going to change his ways. However, FairTax will bring $350 BILLION of now-evaded taxes into the tax base, along with drug dealers, porn dealers, prostitutes and illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes at all now. Also 40 million foreign tourists a year will pay into the tax base. FairTax will broaden and strengthen our economy far beyond what it is at present.
"• Government regulations would be overwhelming. The government would be prying into inventory books, as well as tracking all goods to make sure the tax is paid. TVs and other high dollar items might have to include microchips to track them to make sure the tax gets paid." That's what the IRS is now. That's part of the reason to get rid of the income tax and install a new and much more visible FairTax.
Perhaps you've noticed that every one of these arguments is a pie-in-the-sky argument, based on myth rather than fact. "What if," "it might," "it would be" -- all naysaying negativism based on false probabilities rather than facts. Silly, ineffective arguments, each and every one.
The FairTax is a consumption tax that gets rid of the IRS and all the attendant time and effort spent on income taxes while funding the government at current levels, including social security and medicare. It solves the social security problem.
It also gets rid of employee taxes and other corporate taxes.
FairTax requires people to pay a tax on new goods and services only without raising those prices significantly. It provides a montly rebate to everyone who holds a valid social security card and thereby assures that no one pays tax on anything up to the poverty level.
The FairTax gives you your entire paycheck to do with as you choose -- spend, save or invest. Whichever you choose of those options is good for the national economy. Pay your entire house payment with pretax dollars.
FairTax strips hidden Federal income taxes and compliance costs and makes US goods more competitive in international markets and brings outsourced jobs home along with foreign companies to the USA since we'll be the only country in the world that doesn't tax productivity.
I think Mr. Browne has been too busy to do his research on the FairTax. And, folks, your comments, pro or con, are welcome on this blog.
Browne writes: "National Sales Tax: I've been opposed to the idea of a national sales tax from the first time I heard of it — so long as it does not involve a dramatic reduction in federal spending. Without a reduction in spending, it is just rearranging the burden of big government (which is also the case for any tax cut that doesn't involve a reduction in spending). And thus is a complete waste of our time and effort if we support it." Yes, government spending should be cut but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Tax collection and tax spending are two entirely different issues. HOW taxes are collected does not affect how government spends the money.
"I've said that, once the poor have been made exempt and all the politically strongest industries have exempted their products from the tax, the rate will have to be at least 30% — and probably even more than that. Because of this, it's very unlikely that the tax will ever even be enacted."
"People who say it can't be done should get out of the way of those who are doing it" Chinese Proverb.
Under the FairTax the poor are not exempt. No one is exempt from anything, which is one of its strong points. With FairTax, everyone pays the same amount on new goods, approximately what we're paying now. However, everyone gets a rebate to keep everyone from paying tax of any kind up to the poverty level. It's a great idea -- NO ONE pays taxes up to the poverty level.
"Now Bryan Russel has written to me to provide a number of other reasons to shun the idea of a national sales tax. Here's some of what he said:• It would hurt the economy because it would be an incentive for people not to buy new products, but to buy used items instead (garage sales etc.) to avoid the huge tax." This argument is an un-thinkiing one. Take new cars, for example. Everyone knows that when you drive a new car off the lot, it depreciates in value by some 20% or more immediately, before you even park it in your driveway. Also, you could rent a new car for less than you can buy one. Neither fact has hurt new car sales at all. People still buy new cars for many reasons that have nothing to do with saving money: They can afford it, or they like the smell of a new car, or they're wealthy and want to show off their wealth. (Like buying a new Cadillac every year!)
"• Immediate criminal element in all retailing. Can you say "black markets"?! " Do we have a huge black market in new cars? The same analogy works here.
"• Endless companies lobbying for their product to be tax exempt or at a reduced tax because it is environmentally friendly or is produced by a minority owned company, etc. In short, we would end up with a complicated sales tax code similar to the income tax mess." Read my lips -- NO exemptions. No need to lobby because there are NO exemptions. The fact that the current income tax has those is what has prompted this move to the FairTax in the first place. Besides, when companies are not taxed on their production, they have a built-in incentive to produce more.
"• We might end up having to carry "tax I.D. cards" because sooner or later the politicians would decide that poor people should pay at a lower rate and maybe rich people would pay at a higher rate." "We might" have to fly to the moon for breakfast, too. "We might" is meaningless fop. Do you have a social security card? That's all you need to get your prebate. Poor people pay less tax because they spend less money. The wealthy buy mansions instead of houses, are dressed by Lagerfeld and Versace instead of Penney's and Dillards. They travel in lear jets, jags and limousines instead of Chevys and Toyotas to places like Monaco instead of Las Vegas. Donald Trump is not going to suddenly start buying at WalMart to save money. Part of the fun of being wealthy is showing off, living high, and spending the money.
"• We would need to keep records of how much sales tax we pay — to make sure someone who is making $200,000.00 a year is not paying only $500 in sales tax and thus must be "cheating" by buying things in the new black market or whatever."
With FairTax only merchants keep records on the tax -- they do that for state taxes now, anyway. And they are repaid a quarter of !% on the dollar for being the middleman. It's easy for everyone to know just exactly how much they do pay because it's right there on the sales slip but it's already paid.
As for tax evasion -- sure. Some people will find a way to evade some taxes. If a person is a crook, changing the tax structure isn't going to change his ways. However, FairTax will bring $350 BILLION of now-evaded taxes into the tax base, along with drug dealers, porn dealers, prostitutes and illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes at all now. Also 40 million foreign tourists a year will pay into the tax base. FairTax will broaden and strengthen our economy far beyond what it is at present.
"• Government regulations would be overwhelming. The government would be prying into inventory books, as well as tracking all goods to make sure the tax is paid. TVs and other high dollar items might have to include microchips to track them to make sure the tax gets paid." That's what the IRS is now. That's part of the reason to get rid of the income tax and install a new and much more visible FairTax.
Perhaps you've noticed that every one of these arguments is a pie-in-the-sky argument, based on myth rather than fact. "What if," "it might," "it would be" -- all naysaying negativism based on false probabilities rather than facts. Silly, ineffective arguments, each and every one.
The FairTax is a consumption tax that gets rid of the IRS and all the attendant time and effort spent on income taxes while funding the government at current levels, including social security and medicare. It solves the social security problem.
It also gets rid of employee taxes and other corporate taxes.
FairTax requires people to pay a tax on new goods and services only without raising those prices significantly. It provides a montly rebate to everyone who holds a valid social security card and thereby assures that no one pays tax on anything up to the poverty level.
The FairTax gives you your entire paycheck to do with as you choose -- spend, save or invest. Whichever you choose of those options is good for the national economy. Pay your entire house payment with pretax dollars.
FairTax strips hidden Federal income taxes and compliance costs and makes US goods more competitive in international markets and brings outsourced jobs home along with foreign companies to the USA since we'll be the only country in the world that doesn't tax productivity.
I think Mr. Browne has been too busy to do his research on the FairTax. And, folks, your comments, pro or con, are welcome on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
