BLOG.THOMASPAINEPROJECT.ORG

Catholics, Conscience and Contraception

The Thomas Paine Project — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:00:06 GMT

"Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul" - Rabelais

Most of you are aware of the controversy of the new rules emanating from Health and Human Services. For those who are not aware, they require all employers to include in their health insurance plans full coverage for contraception, sterilization and the drug RU-486 (alternately called the "morning after" or "abortion" pill). RU-486 is taken after unprotected sex to cause a spontaneous expulsion of a fertilized egg, or embryo, in effect aborting the pregnancy.

RU-486 was heavily lobbied against by the Roman Catholic church, other Evangelical churches, and the pro-life movement. All of these groups hold as a core belief that life begins at conception. As a condition of allowing FDA approval, then-President George W Bush instituted a rule exempting health care providers who could not offer this drug without violating their personal convictions. The rule did not deal with insurance coverage.

President Obama, in the rule announced by HHS Secretary Sebelius, has required all employers to offer this coverage. The Roman Catholic church, and the other groups cited above have said that they will not comply, on the grounds that it violates their beliefs and their teachings. The line has been drawn in the sand.

Talk radio listeners know that this has been the major issue over the last few days. It has been framed as a war against the Catholics, and a religious liberty, or freedom of religion issue. We don't think that is a wise strategy, for a number of reasons.

Framing the argument as an "assault on Christianity" makes for lively radio, and gives Fox News a bump in ratings, but going down that path is setting us up for a sucker punch. "This violates our beliefs" only sets us up as another victimized group looking to benevolent DC for an exemption. Even when couched in terms of war, and civil disobedience, using that argument has us dealing from a defensive position. As Rush has been fond of saying, you don't win anything on defense.

First - it legitimizes the rule, and HHS authority to issue it. In the technical sense, Sebelius was granted the authority under the Obamacare bill passed in questionable circumstances. In reality that authority is being questioned as Obamacare goes up the judicial food chain to the Supreme Court. The entire question could be moot, should the court throw out Obamacare over the mandate. Without the mandate, Obamacare does not work, and it will collapse in on itself.

Second - what happens when other groups have their beliefs violated? What happens when a Muslim group decides that a part of the plan violates sharia? Or a Jewish group claims that it violates their beliefs? What do we wind up with? A hodgepodge of exceptions, or the crushing of all faith sponsored charities, schools and hospitals? 25% of all of the hospitals in the United States are affiliated with the Roman Catholic church. Right now the Catholic church is being threatened with a $150 million fine. How many will need to close to pay the fine?

Third - It is not an argument that resonates on the secular world. People of devout faith will be moved by this argument. People with a secular mindset, or where a relationship with God is 5th or 10th or way down on the list of priorities will not relate. They will just hear more whining. It makes us look crazy.

Here is the argument that all can relate to. Employment is a private transaction between an employer and the employee (or the employee's union in the case of collective bargaining). Terms are settled on between the parties. They are either agreed on, and employment occurs, or they are not.

Everyone working at a Catholic sponsored institution is working there willingly. No one is holding a gun to their head and demanding that they work there. The employee, at least at the time of hire, thought it was a good deal. If they ever decide it is not a good deal, they can negotiate better terms, or work elsewhere (except in Obama's economy).

The federal government has no business in this transaction. No law was passed in Congress to address this issue, except in the vaguery of the Obamacare wording. This is merely one bureaucrat's opinion, endorsed by the President, and so ordered. We are finding out that if we accept the principle that the government can give us the right of "healthcare", than they can determine how that "right" will be bestowed. This is not a matter of one group's faith being violated. This is a matter of all of our rights being abridged, one group at a time.

The problem is not Catholic employment practices. It is Obamacare. First they mandate that we purchase insurance or be fined (headed to the Supreme Court as we speak). Now a bureaucrat has injected herself into the mix by deciding that the Catholic church must provide funding so that it's employees, who have not complained about it, will be provided with a benefit that is anathema to their teachings.

There is no compelling reason for this act. No one's rights are being violated by not providing this coverage. No one is stopping any woman from obtaining contraception. You can go into any drugstore and purchase it, including the abortion pill. If that provides a financial burden, Planned Parenthood gives it away for free. Rights are being violated by enforcing this rule.

The current compromise offered is actually more draconian in it's reach. The compromise puts the church in a far worse situation. Instead of the church paying for practices against its beliefs, it makes it impossible for it to not violate those tenets of faith. Insurance companies will no longer be given the option to offer policies that do not include "contraception services". With healthcare so intimately tied to employment, the choices that the church faces under this arrangement are to surrender their core principles, to no longer offer healthcare insurance (which would be of benefit to Obamacare) or to self insure.

In our Colonial past, King William III sought to restrict the religious liberties of Catholics, those who did not believe in the trinity, and those of non-Christian faiths. He ordered the shut down of all of these churches in the American colonies. One man refused - William Penn, who developed Pennsylvania as a haven for personal religious belief - a radical idea at the time. He said that he would not comply, and Pennsylvania did not. We see how that has worked out over time.

The argument of strength, in the words of a letter issued last week by the Bishops of the United States was the same - "We will not comply". We will not do it. We will pay no fine. We will continue to operate as we have. We will teach this from the pulpit. Consistently. We are glad to see the Bishops standing firm against even the back-handed compromise.

Obama graciously deemed it fair to allow the church one year to adjust their insurance coverage. Wait him out. He's either gone in November and the issue goes away, or he can explain how this is helping his constituency of poor - in the closing of charities, hospitals and schools all designed to help the less fortunate among us, in order to pay a fine to the federal government. It is time for all of good conscience to stand in opposition to this lessening of all of our liberties. As Ben Franklin said - "We must all hang together, or we shall most assuredly hang separately". We stand with liberty. Common Sense dictates so.

RLB

It's Party Time

The Thomas Paine Project — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:43:06 GMT

People complain about "party politics" all the time, and how the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are ruining the process of governing the country. To look at DC, one would think that the GOP and the Democrats were 2 three-year olds fighting over a toy. George Washington decried party politics as destructive. All sorts of tinkering has been tried to "fix" the problem, and it only gets worse.

There is a strong (and deserved) urge to blame a media that fans the flames, and sometimes adds a little gasoline for fun. Media is a convenient scapegoat, but it is a scapegoat. The real cause of the problems lies in the solutions we have applied to fix the problems.

These fixes are usually created out of a need for "fairness" and the new buzzword "transparency", and all of it sprang from the ghosts of Watergate. After the 1972 Nixon landslide, lawmakers were "...shocked! I say shocked!..." at the slimy political tricks going on.

Getting elected to office has always been a slimy business. Primaries emerged as a way to address the deal-making that went on behind closed doors in smoked-filled rooms among the party elite as they chose a nominee. Even as late as 1960, primaries were not an important path to the nomination - just a gauge as to public sentiment. It might have been secretive, but seldom was a nominee settled on who was completely unsuited to lead.

Primaries and caucuses soon spread to all 50 states. It made for a lot of travel and a lot more retail politicking. Costs to campaign increased dramatically, so fundraising increased. Television became a more important medium, initially to contain costs. Buying TV time was cheaper than flying hither and yon. Then TV time became expensive as well - as did campaigning.

Slowly the primaries became the measure for who got the nomination. With TV time as the predominant way to get the message out, a certain skill level in dealing with the media was in order. As media has since expanded to a 24-7 news cycle, all of that air time needed to be full, and all of it needed to be "important". Even if it wasn't. With the addition of the internet, YouTube and Facebook, media skill and sadly, looks became even more important.

Primaries have degraded into "American Idol - Politics." It's a popularity contest, not a serious consideration of who will lead the country. Stinging quips and soundbite answers have replaced serious debate on serious issues.

Somewhere down the line, as the campaigning became harsher, and the governing became impossible, the powers-that-be decided that neutering the parties would be a good idea. In one of the worst ideas ever, primaries became open. You did not have to be a Republican to vote Republican, or a Democrat to vote Democrat. It was supposed to move the debate to the center, but it has just made what candidates say vaguer.

This leads to a variety of mischief on so many levels. Since Super Bowl is this weekend, lets go with a football illustration. As the Giants and Patriots meet, we are going to say that the fans are allowed to select the lineup. Giant fans will choose the best Giant players, and Patriot fans will choose the best Patriot players. Just to keep things from getting too partisan, you are given the option to select players for the opposing team. We go from getting the best players to the most mediocre, as we still favor our own side.

That's where we stand with the GOP primaries. Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were all open primaries. Florida was the first closed primary - You had to be a registered Republican to vote. It may well reflect the nation, but in another interesting twist there were nearly 600,000 early voters, some of whom voted before the Newt surge in SC.

Rush Limbaugh saw this flaw in 2008 with his "Operation Chaos" to keep Hillary's campaign alive. Since then even more states have become open including California, which, as always, has gone a step further. They have adopted an open ballot which does not indicate a party affiliation, and the top two vote getters are listed in the general election, regardless of party affiliation. If you're not paying close attention, you will not vote intelligently. Sadly most people don't pay attention.

It's how we wound up with Barack Obama, rather than Hillary or John McCain. Smooth, sharp dressed, cool as a cucumber, with soaring rhetoric about vague but inspirational concepts vs. a shrieking harpy or a crazy old man in a panic about the economic crash. That's what it was to most people saw. Most people are not you. Most people believe the TV ads and votes for the guy they'd want to have a beer with.

It translates to the primaries as well. Newt is entertaining, Mitt is a Ken Doll, Rick is finally figuring it out, and Ron is Ron. My guess is that if Newt was on his game in Florida, the results might have been if not different, it would have been a whole lot closer.

Common Sense Dictates

Neutering the parties has had these destructive effects. The cure may well be restoring the parties. Two clear platforms that illustrate the core principles of each party. During the primaries, we chooses candidates whose policy positions we feel will best serve the core principles of the party. We fold those policies into the final platform for the general election. That's how its supposed to work. If you do not accept these core principles, you are not entitled to run in a primary. That would have eliminated two or three of the initial candidates.

No open primaries. To vote in a GOP primary you must be a registered Republican for the previous year's election. Ditto for the Democrats. If you're not a member of the party, you have no business selecting the leadership of the party. Independents, sorry, you have no business selecting the leadership of either party, since you won't join either. You get to vote in the general election, after the parties have done their work.

Debates - Primary debates need to be debates, not soundbites. We made our suggestions in Debating Debates . The General election debates must move away from the media clowns, and back to being sponsored by a neutral party, or a coalition of neutral parties, if any exist anymore.

And finally, to send this further down the food chain, term limits on all federal elected offices. We covered that in Grumpy Old Men. They were a part of the Articles of Confederation, but were dropped in the Constitution as the idea of a career politician crawled out of the primordial ooze of DC. It's an idea whose time has come back, as well as trying for a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

So says Common Sense.

RLB

Let The Sun Shine In

The Thomas Paine Project — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:50:09 GMT

We occasionally revisit issues when the conversation about them is particularly heated or some new ideas spring out of the conversation. Such was the case with our last article Walking On Sunshine

In it we took a dim view of how solar power is being pushed on a market before it is market-friendly. Market-friendly implies a dependable product at an affordable price, or at least a price that most consumers are willing to pay. Solar has not quite completed that path. In full disclosure, we think solar power is a good idea, when practical and affordable.

We looked at the business models being used, and in the wake of yet another U.S. solar panel manufacturer filing for bankruptcy, we pointed out the weaknesses of most of them. One business model in particular drew our disapproval - giving away the solar panels, metering the electricity used, and billing for the electricity. Sort of the opposite of the original concept. Economically, it is a flawed concept because the company promoting this would be squeezing out red ink for 10 to 12 years before turning a profit. We don't see it surviving that long.

Several subscribers saw this in the light of a business opportunity. It is the same business model used in satellite / cable TV, cellular service, and the internet, where, for the most part the equipment is provided free or at a nominal cost, and the service is charged for. It is the scale of converting over a large enough percentage of users from traditional electricity to solar power that has been the stumbling block.

The observations made by our subscribers led to what could be a working solution, at least for the Sunbelt states. The existing traditional electric companies are in the perfect position to bring solar power into wide use. No, not the huge solar farms that eat up vast swaths of land generating very expensive electricity to feed into the grid. Instead, the traditional electric companies install solar power systems on individual homes, metering the energy, and billing for the power.

Why would this work for the traditional electric providers, but not that one individual solar provider? It would work because they are already providing electricity to the vast majority of homes in America. They have the infrastructure, the expertise, and the equipment. Most of them are cash cows with significant assets. They have an established cash flow in. In short, they are in a much better position to make this work. The pluses and minuses balance in the electric company's favor.

There is only one real minus - installation costs. On the scale that the electric company would be purchasing solar panels, they would be heavily discounted (by China, those jobs will not be had here), but there will be an investment of possibly $10 - 15K per home. Still, that cost balances well against the cost of wiring a house in the traditional manner, and the transformer required by each residence to step down the power to a usable voltage. Cash flow helps with this as well. Besides, in California, the power companies are being forced onto "clean energy" anyway.

California (as an example) has enacted environmental laws that mandate the percentage of electricity generated by "clean" sources. This strategy would be more cost effective than the giant solar farms that are the current "solution". Equipping individual homes generates revenue from the moment the system is installed. In balance, there is probably a similar time frame to recoup the investment either way, but this can be a more controlled plan to profitability.

The pluses are far more numerous. Costs associated with power line maintenance will be minimized, shrinking as whole neighborhoods are converted. Costs associated with power generation will be an ever shrinking piece of the pie. No more rolling blackouts to during high demand. Coal and diesel use will also shrink, which will lower costs to other areas of the country where solar power is not a practical solution. All of these lowered costs can contribute to lower electrical rates.

As a side benefit, this will quiet the environmentalists, for a little while anyway...

Common Sense Dictates

So from a few observations, we have put together a market-based, bottom-up, practical and profit-driven plan. That's what we like to do at The Thomas Paine Project , not only point out the problems, but come up with solutions. It is the opposite of the heavy-handed government mandated regulations that emanate from DC (and Sacramento).

There are details to flesh out as far as implementation and speed. We will leave that to the power companies to work out. They are better equipped to come up with a viable way to proceed than we are. They are certainly better equipped than the government.

The only down side to this plan is giving up on the idea of free solar power. We examined that in the last article. There doesn't seem to be a way to bring solar out of a niche market at a profit on the current business models. They couldn't make eight foot satellite dishes for free TV profitable back in the 80's. The market, when left to itself, usually finds a way.

So we toss this idea out to Southern California Edison. You're welcome. Now we ask them to use Common Sense in implementation.

RLB

Walking On Sunshine

The Thomas Paine Project — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:24:53 GMT

OK folks - this is a consumer protection piece. God knows we love the idea of cleaner energy and energy independence. We just base our strategy in the reality of where we are as opposed to where we can be in a few years. And yes, we can be there in a few years, maybe 8 maybe 12, maybe 20, no one knows when exactly, but it will come. It's just not here now. As Don Rumsfeld said, "you don't go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you have." We can spur on the new technology, but until it pans out, we have what we have.

Green energy is President Obama's personal fetish. He has visions of solar panels and windmills dancing in his dreams. He talks about it at any chance he gets, and tosses money at it even more frequently. The stimulus has about 30% of its funds going to "enhancing renewable energy". We get it - he's excited about it. Still the science isn't there yet. Just the money being tossed at it.

The boondoggles range from wind farms, to solar companies to bullet trains and the Chevy Volt. T.Boone Pickens tossed a billion dollars into a windfarm in central Texas only to figure out there's no way to get the electricity back to where the people are. The electrical grid cannot transport it that far. He abandoned that project. He's switched to pushing natural gas, which coincidentally President Obama gave lip service to in the SOTU.

Warren Buffett turns out to be a huge recipient of a windfall of President Obama canceling the Keystone XL pipeline. Seems he owns Burlington - North Santa Fe LLC railroad, which transports all of the oil and natural gas coming out of Canada right now. Hey, has he settled his federal tax bill yet? As much as he crows about wanting to send more to DC, he's still holding back about a billion dollars...

OK, a specific boondoggle - the Chevy Volt. To illustrate why the Chevy Volt is a boondoggle, we need to point out that its primary fuel is coal. Evil, dirty, nasty coal - so dirty that its name is never spoken by the President. When you plug it in the wall, the electricity that is stored in it's battery is generated by a coal fired power plant which accounts for 80% of the power plants online. In the environmentalists' own words, not an environmentally friendly solution. We're not going to pick on the Volt right now, we're going to target another Obama favorite - solar.

When we say solar, the first thing that comes to mind is Solyndra. Solyndra (the now bankrupt solar company) was good for $500 million in federal donations all by itself. Solyndra folded because the costs associated with manufacturing solar panels domestically, makes it prohibitively expensive to install and run. The technology has not caught up with market expectations.

Personal experience informs this observation. Living in southern California, it made sense to explore solar power as an alternative to the high energy prices provided by the local electric company. Of the quotes received, the low end was $33K, and would not guarantee full self- sufficiency. None, as far as we can determine guarantee full self-sufficiency once air-conditioning is factored in for the summer.

The lowest quote that came with an expectation, but not a guarantee of full self-sufficiency was $54K. There is, as far as I can tell, no upper limit on what could be spent. Granted this is California, and the numbers may be different in less costly states, but those are the numbers that I received.

On average, our electric bill is about $400.00. Multiply by 12 months gets us to $4800.00. Multiply that by 10 years and you get $48K - still not up to the price of the "expected" self-sufficient system. You would need to add on nearly another two years before there is a break even point with what would be paid to the local utility. That is a horrible return on investment.

The solar industry has gone into 2 business models to address this bad economic news. The first goes after the niche environmental customer. Price is not an issue, the environment is. These are the affluent, educated professionals who will buy, just to make a statement - the kind of person who buys a Prius, or a Volt. Solar companies focusing on this type of customer are doing reasonably well out here.

Then there are the companies that do what they can to hide the costs involved. This has been done in a number of ways. Initially prices were lowered by buying the solar panels from China, which has much lower labor costs. This can shave 20 - 30% off of the total installation cost, but solar is still prohibitively expensive for most families, even at the lowered cost.

Certain companies have tried a sideways approach of free equipment installation and"leasing" the solar equipment. The lease would work at terms of about 70% of the average consumers electric bill, provided that their average bill is over $150.00 - apparently the break even point. Sounds like a win for the consumer, but you're not really buying the equipment, you never own it, and lease terms can and will change on a yearly basis.

The newest approach is being plastered all over the airwaves in SoCal. We don't even have to identify the company. If you do a half hour of Talk Radio once a week, you've heard the commercials. The company "gives" you a solar system, and instead of paying your local utility, or paying a set monthly fee for an equipment lease, this company installs an electric meter. You pay for the power. Just like you do now. Only less. For now.

They do not quote a rate, and if the local utility is a guide, it can change at any time. Right now they can undercut the utility in the hopes that solar becomes more profitable over time. It costs about 6 times as much to generate power via the sun than by fossil fuel. The solar pricing formula works because of the tiered pricing schedule used by the local utility to nudge down electricity use during peak hours. without the tiered pricing, solar cannot compete.

The solar company is running a bet on increased profitability in the future. They are undercutting the price of the local utility in the hopes of drawing enough customers to be competitive with the local utility. Summing up, at least in the short term they are operating at a loss. What happens when companies operate at a loss? Solyndra. Bankruptcy.

Should the company fold, those solar panels installed on your roof (that you don't own), become company assets to be liquidated to pay creditors. We can't imagine those removing the solar panels will work with the same care as those who installed them. Or be required to repair your roof. The panels will not stay there at the agreed price because the new owners of the company will not operate at a loss. Rates will rise to meet costs plus a profit. We are not bashing capitalism, just explaining how it works. Seems that there are even Republicans that don't understand that concept lately.

Common Sense Dictates

We have stated before and often, that we believe that an "all of the above" strategy should apply as we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We believe that wind and solar should be used where practical. We note that domestic drilling and nuclear remain notably absent from the President's approach.

We think that the tanking of the Keystone XL pipeline was a disaster on many fronts - jobs, reliable energy and lower fuel prices. Right now gasoline sits at $4.00 per gallon in SoCal. Fuel oil is in shortage and spiking in costs in the northeast. There has been one new drilling permit issued in the Gulf of Mexico since the BP incompetence. Of the 75% of federal lands opened to drilling according to the SOTU, most does not have any oil to drill for. All of the offshore drilling approved by GWB and the Congress in 2008 remains shut down by the current administration. This is not an example of a serious commitment to energy independence, or even moving away from dependence on sources hostile to us. This is a matter of national security.

What we have is a series of payouts to supporters in "green energy" via the federal trough. It's a long list - Solyndra, GE, GM for starters. Seems most of them have connections to the Obama Administration as bundlers (Solyndra), benefactors (Immelt at GE) and supporters (the UAW who now owns GM). Crony capitalism is not policy. It is just corrupt.

We are not bashing solar energy either - we support it, wherever practical. What we are trying to do is illustrate what happens when the government tries to push a product that is not yet ready for market. Scams arise to generate profitability where none exists in the real world.

This speaks to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, where banks sought to minimize their risk in being forced make bad loans in the name of federal fairness. The same approach is being made in the push for solar. Now providers of solar energy are either targeting the willing market (the affluent environmentalists) , which is fair; or scamming people who will see little economic benefit, and possibly economic harm by participating in an idea that is not yet market ready. Common Sense stands against practices that stand to harm the general public. Common Sense stands against foisting bad ideas on people before they are good ideas. CommonSense would like to see a little common sense.

RLB

Carolina On My Mind

The Thomas Paine Project — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:48:28 GMT

So Newt won yet another debate. It's easier to figure that out now since there's not a multitude of candidates on the stage, all trying to fit a coherent answer into 30 seconds. Still, Newt usually walks away with the prize for debating skills. This doesn't minimize the skills of the other candidates - Rick Santorum argued conservatism forcefully and passionately. Rick Perry had his best debate showing yet. Mitt has been doing this for so long, well, he just avoids screwing up - which is what is making him the default nominee. Doesn't seem right, but it is what it is...

We enjoyed Newt steamrolling Juan Williams. In questions tinged with race-baiting, Mr. Williams tried to paint Newt (and all Republicans) as an insensitive, bigoted, heartless CAPITALIST who only seeks to exploit minorities and the poor in demeaning jobs. Newt didn't even slow down for the speed bump, positing that work is more edifying than welfare, and a paycheck provides more dignity and reward than a wad of food stamps. When questioned on his insensitivity in suggesting that being a janitor was an option for poor youth, Mr. Gingrich pointed out that union janitors make a living that most would consider very comfortable, and that earned cash in the pockets of the poor is what best serves the poor. We agree.

Still, what does it matter? All of the GOP debates have been exercises in gotcha journalism. The GOP sends up 8, 7, 6, and now 5 candidates to answer questions asked by an agenda driven media not interested in the answers, just the perception that there is something wrong with all of them. We are diverted to wedge issues designed to make the candidates look at best out of touch, and at worst stupid. I cannot think of a single question asked in the multitude of debates that has allowed a candidate to weigh in on an issue of substance. That holds whether the debate is sponsored by CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews.

These debates are rolled out as a means of self-gratification for the moderators to show how much smarter they are than the people actually running for President. You would think that maybe one of the media types could understand that this is actually an important thing - the direction of the country is being decided. People have a need to be informed of the actual issues and policies of those seeking office. Still, news is not reported or investigated. Instead we get infotainment looking for drama. Talking heads preening for the cameras. American Idol, DC style. And we wonder why the best we can come up with to lead the country is Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

We have asked for this. We have insulated ourselves from anything that challenges our point of view. Instead of being confronted with Walter Cronkite or Huntley and Brinkley, and making an informed decision on what is presented, we can now go to any number of sources who just present what we want to hear. It is hard to think critically when your news source always agrees with you.

There was a time when the election of a President was about more than who screwed up less on TV or YouTube. There was a time that the idea of America was more than "what's in it for me?". Sadly, those days appear to be gone.We have progressed from E Pluribus Unum to the iPad, iPod, iPhone and iNews. I, the me, has replaced we, the people.

So we have entertainment disguised as serious debate. The lone departure from this formula was the Cain / Gingrich one on one before the Cain candidacy imploded National Enquirer style. This does not serve America. We have often brought out the illustration of Nero's "bread and circuses" - keep the people fat and entertained, and they won't think about how they are getting screwed by the powers that be.

It is not hopeless - there are people who do pay actual attention to the issues, and the challenges facing the country. They are not interested in the victor of the next GOP cage match, they are interested in solutions. They sit on both sides of the aisle.

Yup, I said it. There are Democrats out there who are every bit as concerned with the wrong turn this country has made as the Republicans are. When you are out of work, losing your home, and wincing every time you fill up the gas tank, we all have a pretty universal point of view. This is wrong and needs to stop.

So we can do another 4 years of what isn't working, or try something different. We remember what happened in 2008 - the crap hit the fan and everyone panicked. Economic Armageddon was breathing down our necks. John McCain tanked his Presidential bid by shutting down the campaign to whip DC back into shape, and Obama looked like the cooler head. In hindsight he was the cooler head because he had no clue as to what was needed to fix the problem. To be fair, neither did George Bush, who left a stain in his own pants as well.

In the 3 years following, nothing has worked with any effectiveness. You can tell by the anemic economic growth, the unemployment rate that sits above the "promised land" of 8% (and is really about 14% in real numbers), and an inflation rate that would give Jimmy Carter pause. Oh, and the housing market in the tank...

Time to try a better direction, and that direction is held by the GOP. Hell, Tim Geithner said it himself - he (and by definition the Democrats) are out of bullets. Nothing that they have tried has worked "as well as expected". Time for a market based solution that isn't panic driven. Newt nailed that point in the debate, as did Rick and Rick and Mitt. The conservative argument should always be what it is - "We want everyone to succeed to the heights that their talent and hard work will carry them." We accept no limits on success, we accept no limits on potential. Every GOP candidate is carrying that message.

Newt said it best this week. He may always say it best. He may make an excellent President, or burn out in a tissy-fit. Every GOP candidate carries this same belief. President Obama has been a harsh disappointment. It's time to move in another direction. So says Common Sense.

RLB

Moving The Dream Forward

The Thomas Paine Project — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:35:30 GMT

We, as a nation have set aside the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr to honor the man and his work. Few men have made so indelible a mark on America as Dr. King. He did so by claiming the moral high ground, and mounting the struggle of his people from there. He gained progress for his people not because of his charisma (which he was blessed with), or his talent in making back room deals (now considered an necessary requisite). He made progress because he was right, and America saw that rightness.

He sought justice for his people. He sought to attain equal protection under the law for black America - a group who suffered the institutional bondage of slavery. Upon the abolition of slavery, the freed slaves and their descendants continued to live at the margins of society. Laws were enacted and ignored. Work-arounds were created. Justice was denied time and time again.

By the time he was assassinated, Dr. King was well into the process of gaining that justice. He led at an important time in the march to a colorless society. We have not fully arrived yet, but have come a long way. One can argue whether a great man makes history or history calls a man to greatness, but Dr. King and the history of race relations in the United States are forever joined together. Our society is a better one because of his moral courage and steadfastness in the face of adversity.

What a contrast his example is to the current state of affairs in America, where cutting a deal is more important than standing for what is right; where sharp packaging is more important than what is contained inside, where intentions matter more than results. Let us compare and contrast the two.

What Dr. King sought was to assure that under the law, every individual would have the right to live freely and prosper without hindrance. His dream was to unlock the boundless opportunity of America to all, regardless of race or conviction. He looked to see the day when the only judgment passed on a person was with regard to his character.

His primary flock was black America, but all of America benefited from his vision. Dr. King persuaded the Federal government to step in to secure the rights defined in the US Constitution that were being systematically denied to his flock by certain states, and informally by others. Specifically, he called for the enforcement of the Bill of Rights and the 14th & 15th Amendments. He did so not by claiming these rights for his flock alone, but for all Americans - for anyone denied his rights under the Constitution. He argued our commonality, not our divisions.

How sad Dr. King would be now to see how we have devolved into a nation of squabbling children fighting over scraps from the federal goodie bag. The colorless society of boundless opportunity that he sought for all Americans has become a divided house of hyphenated Americans ("Fill in the ethnic group"-American). Labels based on race, religion, ethnicity or some other "difference" determine your share of the national pie.You would never know this walking on the street, or at the store or in the schools. People, by and large, get along - even with racial differences.

Yet, we are not yet a colorless society, or even a rainbow that celebrates diversity while blending together as a unified object of beauty. We are, at least as the government sees us, the paint swatch card at Home Depot - clearly delineated groups categorized and sorted by label. We are expected to stand in line, waiting for our group to be handed it's goodies. The money always grows, and the groups grow to meet the money.

How did this happen? It happened when we made the decision to go beyond the granting and enforcement of rights, and into that ageless dream of a society of equality and harmony - a man-made utopia where no one suffers from want. It stresses not equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome. This is the progressive argument. It appeals to the American conscience in favor of justice, but the appeal is a false argument. Even Jesus acknowledged that the poor would always be with us.It's intention is good, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As an example we can use the expansion of welfare under the "War on Poverty". The driver of this legislation was President Lyndon Johnson who was concerned about poverty in general, and it's effects on the black community in particular. While his intentions were compassionate, his methods were faulty. As the legislation was crafted, it fostered institutional poverty. It has been argued that it contributed to the destruction of the black family in poor urban areas.

Welfare rules rewarded families with an absent father and multiple children at a higher payment than a family with both parents present. Work was discouraged. Any effort at self-improvement threatened to cut off the guaranteed stream of public assistance.

Welfare, public housing and food stamps can all be argued for in the short term. This is where the voice of Dr. King is so missed. He fought so that each individual would have the opportunity to fulfill their potential. He looked for a hand up, not a handout. King's struggle was for the dignity of his flock, not to succumb to dependence or a sense of entitlement for past wrongs. He would be horrified to see the plantation replaced with the projects.

Dr. King was of the position that individual action is what allows a person to reach his potential - personal responsibility in the conduct of one's own life. This was a view that was shared by Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington - two icons in American history. When Dr. King started his work, the road to reaching full potential for a black man was blocked. His movement knocked aside all of those barriers except for the personal racism in the minds of a dying out breed of bigot. Every avenue of success is available regardless of race.

The proof of that is all around us - Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Barack Obama. It is seen in the ever growing black middle class. It was not gained by the government holding the hands of people on their way to success. It was gained by opening doors. It was the action of the individual passing through the door that determined success.

The best example of government actually helping move people in poverty towards Dr. King's dream was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. In it, a Republican legislature partnered with then President Bill Clinton to find a way to break the despair of generational poverty and dependence. The Reform gave a true boost in education, job training, and life skills to people who did not have the opportunity to learn these things through family and community. It reduced the welfare rolls by 53%, and provided many families the skills they needed to move up out of poverty.This is the way out that Dr. King envisioned - education, application and determination.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

The words echo in all decent people. Being judged by the color of your skin was to think of all as the same. Being judged by the content of your character can only be done individually. What is in each person's character is what makes a person unique. Dr. King's call was to look beyond race and to judge the individual. Opportunity should not be denied because of race, but each individual will make different use of that opportunity. Equality of opportunity is a right, outcome depends on individual talent and effort..

Common Sense Dictates

TPP is a strong supporter of the goals of Dr. King. We have made great strides in achieving King's colorless society, but there are glaring faults doing great damage to his dream that have been institutionalized into the system. We find it disturbing that the principles preached by Rev. King - individual dignity, opportunity, and responsibility - have gotten lost in government proposed "solutions" to poverty. We find it even more maddening that the inheritors of his cause have found it more useful make political hay than to correct the problems.

We need not call out names, but many advocacy groups see more profit, literally, in preserving the current system as is. Rather than make the choices necessary to actually provide their constituency the skills required to succeed and prosper, they advocate for more entitlement benefits. Our Congressional representatives go along to keep the campaign coffers full. Those buried in nearly 50 years of dependence on a system that punishes anyone seeking personal improvement are left once again in despair.

Warehousing the poor in substandard housing, and providing them with a meager subsistence is not the granting of equal opportunity or individual dignity. We already have found that method to fail. We fought a civil war to correct it.

We at TPP remember Dr. King. We can only imagine that he would be beaming with pride at the strides made in overcoming institutionalized racism. He would be outraged by the growth in institutionalized poverty, which disproportionately is inflicted on those he sought to help. Dr. King understood that charity is not tossing money at a problem in the hope that it goes away. Charity consists of working to solve the problem. We have a new generation of leaders taking their place, both within and outside of the black community. It would be a great tribute to Dr. King for this new leadership to pick up the his mantle and provide those left behind with a way forward, not an uncomfortable seat. Moving the dream forward is the only Common Sense.

RLB

Is The Fat Lady Warming Up?

The Thomas Paine Project — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 04:23:49 GMT

"It ain't over till the fat lady sings" goes the old saw about how long an opera lasts. We are now in the very first minutes of the GOP soap opera, and half of the punditry is looking for the exits. Most of them are putting a dress on Mitt, though in reality Newt fits the bill better. Seriously - it this over or only just beginning?

Mitt is the dominant force so far even though he consistently polls at 25%. That would indicate that 75% of the GOP voters would prefer someone else. That is also borne out in the frantic game of whack-a-mole being played as challengers to Romney are give their fifteen minutes of fame. A smaller field would be a problem for Romney, as conservatives coalesce around the alternative choice.

For Mitt to lock this up, he would need to take not only Iowa and New Hampshire (done), but South Carolina (which is Perry country, and Newt is expected to do well) and Florida (which will feed off of the South Carolina results). Then comes Super Tuesday, which will distribute victories to anyone left standing. The truth is that Mitt, Newt, Perry and probably Santorum will all remain viable until well into February. As to the rest, they will be gone by then - except for Ron Paul who will stick it out just to be a thorn in the side of the rest of the candidates.

So if the electoral map doesn't sort this out early, do the candidates? Mitt is the guy we came to the dance with. He's the next guy in line, and the GOP has a long tradition of giving the next guy the job. The problem this time is that the GOP voters are looking for love and not feeling it. If Mitt is going to take this, and he can't win fast, he has to win long. The long strategy doesn't work well for him though because as candidates drop off, the race will come down to a two-man - Romney and the not-Romney. We believe that the not-Romney wins this battle.

So who is the not-Romney? Newt? We've heard a word associated with Newt - mercurial, which is a nice way of saying all over the place. The electorate tends to prefer a President with a stable public temperament (Remember how McCain tanked his campaign in 2008 by running across the country in a panic after the economic meltdown?).

Newt has a brilliant mind filled with thousands of solutions that he would like to try - as President. By definition, one who sees the solutions coming from DC is a big government guy. The electorate is coming at it from the opposite direction - restoration of a limited and smaller government. Newt will keep the pressure on Mitt for as long as he can stay in the race, and it will be entertaining, but he's not the guy. We would like to see him in the administration though - maybe as Chief-of-Staff.

Rick Santorum has been impressive. He has a great depth of knowledge, and is the most reliably conservative candidate. Beyond that he has held onto his humility throughout this process, which speaks volumes for his character, but has probably hamstrung his campaign. Politics is not a place for gentlemen. We believe that he would be an excellent President. We don't think that his core principles will allow him to do what is necessary to get elected, and that is a shame for the country.He would be an excellent VP choice.

That leaves the other Rick - Perry. He came in on a whirlwind that dropped out underneath him. It dropped out because he was woefully unprepared when he entered the race. A big pile of cash won't guarantee a nomination - just ask Hillary. Anyone who knows him will tell you that Rick Perry doesn't lose elections. He has staked his campaign on South Carolina, and has been preparing, educating himself and planning the rest of the campaign. His stump speeches are inspiring, and he didn't flame out in the NH debates.

Perry has fielded a tax reform plan that is workable. He has an economic track record as chief executive. He is governor of a large state and has been reelected twice. That would argue for him being a successful governor. He has evolved over the years into a solid conservative. If he hadn't stumbled coming out the gate, he was the logical choice for the not-Romney. He still is best positioned to take on that role. He will be better prepared this time.

Common Sense Dictates

We at TPP conclude that the fat lady is not even rehearsing yet. We also conclude that the longer this race goes on, there is more probability that Mitt Romney will not be the nominee. As the not-Romneys fall by the wayside the remaining not-Romney will gain the support of their voters. We see a repeat of Reagan / Bush in 1980.

There has been a call for the conservative candidates to pick among themselves who the not-Romney will be. We find that to be a bad idea. The process is doing what it is supposed to do - build stronger candidates for the general election. If our candidates can't handle the nomination process, they will never survive what President Obama lets loose on them. The nomination is not a gift. It must be earned.

That said, If Mitt does come out on top, there is consensus on staff that we will support him. The country can't afford four more years of Obama. So says common sense.

RLB

Time Capsule for 2011

The Thomas Paine Project — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 04:06:46 GMT

In what has become a yearly tradition, we are going to pack our wishlist time capsule to be opened in fifty years. We're sure that you will have additional suggestions, but we do feel that locking away these particular items will best convey the year 2011 to next generation and beyond.

For convenience, and because they are a pre-boxed set we include Osama Bin Laden, Muammar Gadaffi, and Kim Jong Il. If we act right now, we can get Kim jong Il in a lovely glass display case. What? Too soon??

A Toilet - to commemorate the second summer of recovery... or the third. I've lost count because nothing has changed, at least for the better.

Solyndra - to commemorate another Obama success story in green energy.

Jeff Immelt - for getting GE through last year without paying taxes. Also for being appointed to the one job that Obama did create this year - Jobs Czar. How proud we all are...

Warren Buffett - another FOO (Friend of Obama) for fighting to raise taxes on the rich, while at the same time fighting for 10 years over about a billion dollars his company owes the IRS. That is multi-tasking.

Jon Corzine - still another FOO, who expected to be running for POTUS in 2016, but will most likely be cooling his heels in jail instead. We understand Buffett not wanting to part with his cash, but how do you just "lose" $1.2 billion? There should have been a hint when as Governor of New Jersey, the state was awash in debt. His defense was to call the current Governor, Chris Christie, fat.

A Piece Of Toast - to symbolize President Obama in his quixotic race for a second term in the White House.

Operation Wall Street - so that they have someplace to occupy safely for the next 50 years.

Charlie Sheen - just because. Send Lindsay Lohan along with him so that he doesn't accidentally sober up.

The also rans for the GOP nomination - though several of them may be useful in a Santorum Administration. Did I just say that out loud?

John Boehner - the conservative movement has no use for him, and he has no use for the conservative movement. It's easier to replace one man than the Constitution of the United States. Send the rest of the RINOs along with him. Oh, that will have to wait for 2012.

An Ounce Of Gold - which will settle in at about $500.00 an ounce once Obama gets booted and the next guy does something constructive. A bubble is a bubble, whether it's in tech, housing or gold.

Print Media - as it battles new media knowing that it has already lost.

Al Gore - and keep him alive, and as well fed as his current waistline testifies to. We want him to emerge from the capsule in 50 years, and see how his climate change predictions worked out. We think he'll be a bit embarrassed. No wait, he's Al Gore. He'll just start jabbering on about how now we have fifty years less to deal with it.

We think that sums up the year fairly well. Feel free to add your suggestions as we move into a New Year that we all hope contains great promise.

A Happy and Prosperous New Year To You All!

RLB

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to All!

The Thomas Paine Project — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:47:37 GMT

No, we're not taking up the "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays" battle here - we feel that scuffle is best fought by the far ends of each wing to to keep them busy while the rest of us enjoy the celebration and good will. Both the person who is offended by being wished a "Merry Christmas", and the person who has turned the phrase into a weapon to steal back something that was not stolen, well, they both miss the point. TPP is of the opinion that Jesus himself would greet either view with a 'Seriously, stop it. Haven't you heard a word that I've said? Just stop it.' He wasn't much on turf wars over words. The petty legalisms of the Pharisees were a favorite target for him.

In the roughly 2000 years since that night in Bethlehem, the phrase "Merry Christmas" has taken on more meaning than "Happy Birthday Jesus!" Merry Christmas calls us to our better ideals - generosity, charity, peace on earth, good will to all. Merry Christmas is more than a greeting in the same way that America is more than a word or a name - it is an idea.

"Merry Christmas" is firmly rooted in Christianity, as a celebration day for the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, who in the historic context was a Jewish preacher of the first century AD (or CE, as the historians like to say now). The exact date on which Jesus was born is unknown so the celebration feast (Christ's Mass) floated about for a number of years. The date of December 25th was finally settled on as that date coincided with one of the major Pagan feasts (the feast of Mithros) during the solstice celebrations in Rome. This provided the earliest of evangelicals an opportunity to convert.

We can see the Apostle Paul's fingerprints on this idea, as he was single-handedly the greatest marketer of Christianity ever. We quote from 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 "And to the Jews I became a Jew, that I might win Jew; to those who are under the law, as under the law, though not being myself under the law, that I might win those under the law; to those without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men that I may by all means, save some."

Over the years the holiday of Christmas has had it's ups and downs - it's attachment to pagan vices followed it around like a dark cloud. Most of the conservative Christian movement had until recently shunned Christmas in favor of Easter. At it's best, Christmas in the European tradition was an opportunity to provide for the poor and indigent - usually in the form of a meal. At it's worst, it was an excuse for all of the excesses of mankind that we now reserve for New Year's eve.

It is in America that Christmas took hold as an idea beyond Christianity. As America grew prosperous during the industrial age, more people had larger amounts of disposable income. Christmas became a time to indulge the children a bit with gifts and treats. C. Clement Moore's poem, "A Visit from St. Nicholas" captured the spirit of the times, and is to this date read as a tradition in many homes each Christmas Eve. The evangelical church in America took a cue from the Catholic church, in providing services on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

These were considered celebratory services, and used to give thanks for personal blessing and to appeal to the generous spirit of those who had done well to help those who had not. As American prosperity grew, so did it's commitment to help those who were not enjoying in that prosperity. Communities organized to gather food and gifts so that as many as possible could have at least one day of enjoyment and free of cares. As time went on, major organizations joined in the charitable giving, and even government entities (The USMC's "Toys for Tots" is a favorite example).

Today, Christmas is less a Christian holiday, and that is vexing to many Christians, hence the battle over words. There is less talk about Jesus and more about the Christmas spirit, but how do we define Christmas spirit? It is an appeal for each of us to be more thankful for those good things in our lives, and to share more willingly with those who have less. It asks us to be kinder and more honorable. It asks us to put aside petty grievances. It teaches us exactly what Jesus taught us, and asks us to live our lives as he did.

The Christmas spirit is an ideal suited to liberal and conservative; to Christian, Jew or Muslim; to any other belief in God, or to those who believe that humanity is the highest form. Appealing to the better spirits within us makes it easier to live - by way of the shared cab, the offered parking space, or the smiling greeting - even that tattered dollar in the Salvation Army pot. Offering our best side makes others feel good, and makes us feel good within ourselves. If only we could make it last for more than two weeks per year.

So please - Have a Very Merry Christmas (even if you celebrate something else) and may the coming year be the best yet for you and your family!

RLB

The Race To Mediocrity

The Thomas Paine Project — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 06:21:49 GMT

When I was a boy, we were taught to reach for the moon. Literally. I was 10 years old when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped onto the dust of the lunar surface and left footprints that lie undisturbed to this day. A striving for excellence was the norm. We were taught that it required hard work, critical thinking and personal drive. We were competitive by nature, and though the end results for everyone were different, few felt anything but shame in not doing their best.

What do we teach our children now? To sort our garbage. To fill in the circle completely with a number 2 pencil. That incandescent bulbs are a vital threat to the environment. That all points of view are legitimate, no matter how absurd or violent. That defending one's self is never acceptable, but a lawsuit always is. That the principles we founded the country on are somehow suspect or immoral.

What happened to the ideal of the rugged individual fending for himself? What have we done since the impossible Kennedy command to reach the moon by the end of the decade? When did mediocrity become not only acceptable, but the norm? When was personal pride sacrificed to an entitlement mentality?

I grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood, in a town that would be considered ethnically diverse at the time - equal numbers of blacks and whites and a growing number of hispanics.There was the occasional Asian - usually from Japan or China. The lawns were neatly manicured as were the hedges. The houses remained clean and the paint was patched as it peeled. Most families had one black and white TV, and a used family car that leaked oil onto the driveway.

As kids, we were expected to do well in school. Many of us were the first in our families to attend college. We did so on the scholarships that we earned, and by scrimping, saving, and working our way through. After all, those new Pell grants were only for the poor people. We pay our way.

What do we see now? Mom and Dad both with full time careers, and the kids sent off to daycare at months old. The 2 careers are necessary not for any real need, but to support the $750K house that's now worth $375K. Then there's the payments on the Mercedes, the SUV, and the minivan to haul the kids around in.

Up until recently most of us have been guilty of tossing the biggest, newest and most impressive whatever on the credit card rather than save up for what we actually need. Somehow perpetual debt lost it's sting and became normal. Then the manure hit the fan back in 2008, and well, the rest is the history we are living

The kids are taught how to win on standardized tests, not how to think and analyze. There is more social indoctrination than education going on. Adherence to rules is valued higher than striving for excellence. Grading on a curve has replaced mastering subjects. Self-esteem is valued over self-reliance. Compliant worker bees are being turned out rather than innovators and visionaries.

And that is the damage to the middle and upper classes. We have created an intergenerational permanent underclass who cannot function in our minority communities. The temporary aid of unemployment under FDR, has turned into the lifestyle choice of welfare in years following. By lifestyle choice, I do not mean people choose welfare. They are however disincentivized to improve their lot by threatening their subsistence. The projects have replaced the plantations. The masters are now institutional, but the whips they carry are just as painful.

We are of course, outlining the disastrous end results of our flirtation with progressivism - the view that the federal (well, really national) government is the best arbiter of what is right for all that ails us as a society. It has been 111 years of slide since Teddy Roosevelt looked to Europe and started borrowing ideas. It has ramped up exponentially since the real "me" generation, the boomers, took over running the country.

You remember the boomers, right? Sit-ins, demonstrations, riots... "if it feels good do it"; "I am a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars"; and that old favorite - "hell, no we won't go". Their parents dug out of a depression, saved the world from a fascist threat, and figured out how to plant an American flag on the moon. The boomers reaped the rewards and felt entitled by just being there.

All of this is reflected in our modern, self-absorbed society where mediocrity is the standard so that the mediocre can feel superior. Everyone receives an award for participation. Everyone deserves a turn at bat. Everyone is special and deserves special treatment.

Reality TV is an inexpensive way for us to mock mediocrity in others. The 24-7 news feed is more about making fun of Lindsay Lohan or Charlie Sheen than reporting news. Seriously, how much of what is reported on CNN or even Fox would have made it onto that half hour of network news back in the days before Ted Turner had a silly but profitable idea?

Twitter and Facebook feed our egos because we can report to the world that we had an excellent slice of pizza in the Bronx, but unfortunately, the restroom was disgusting. Really, who cares? I don't. OMG! STFU!

After all of these years of practice, it has finally made the country dysfunctional. The products of our school systems, our "me" culture and our egos being constantly stroked is that those we send to represent us in government are so equally flawed. The prime example of this phenomenon sits in the Oval Office, when he's not on the golf course or at a fund raiser. Is there anyone who has ever proved himself less qualified for a job than our President? Mediocrity thinks he is king.

It's the legislative branch as well - entrenched parasites collecting campaign contributions and handing out favors. What else explains a Charlie Rangel or an Anthony Wiener, or for that matter a John Boehner who would rather fold and cut a cosmetic deal than deal with the real issues and come up with real solutions?

The Tea Party movement is attempting to correct this, but replacing them one at a time will take a few election cycles, and is not a permanent solution. We need to reintroduce striving for excellence, and self-reliance as our ideals, as well as the concept of serving in government not being a career for elected officeholders.

Common Sense Dictates

The race to mediocrity has a certain future, whether we look to the bread and circuses of Rome under Nero, or the social upheaval in Europe right now. Mediocrity speaks to a society in decline. A society moving in the direction of failure. We have been here before and were brought back from the brink in 1980 by the election of a man whose vision would not allow for the decline of America.

Say what you want about his policies, his successes and his failures, but Ronald Reagan was elected for one reason only - to restore American pride. He accomplished that mission. Our next President will have a similar mandate, but more difficult circumstances. Restoring American pride now will require a reversal of the acceptance of mediocrity in our society. It was the Gipper's absolute faith in the American spirit to win the day that carried him to the Oval Office. We think it would be a good idea for the GOP candidates to take a lesson from him and call America back to it's natural excellence. That's a sure path to restoring our place in the world. With our confidence restored and striving for excellence reinstated, the rest of our challenges can be addressed and overcome. So says Common Sense.

RLB

Another One Bites The Dust

The Thomas Paine Project — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 05:58:51 GMT

Well, Herman Cain's candidacy now joins the carnage of the other brief front sprinters. Newt has grabbed the baton for his charge ahead of Mitt, and we're wondering how long that will last. We think it's a good time to do a post-mortem on all of them, and try to get a handle on an extremely fickle electorate. We ask, are the fickle, or just very demanding of their candidate in very demanding times? We think the latter.

The scenario is always the same - Mitt and the anti-Mitt. Let's go in order. First Michele Bachmann came on hard in the first Iowa Caucus, and tore up Rick Perry on his E.O. mandating Gardasil injections - then she jumped her own shark by linking Gardasil to mental retardation. She hasn't been out of single digits since.

T-Paw was next up and took a hard swipe at Mitt using the term Obamneycare. Then he backed off, forgetting the first rule of politics - If you want to take down the king, you better be able to. He then faded back into the wallpaper and went home.

Trump was entertaining for awhile, but was never serious - he was just generating more buzz for "The Apprentice" and his other money making enterprises.

Rick Perry rode in like the Lone Ranger ready to take on the evil Mitt. Then he spoke, and made us wonder if there's something in the water in Texas that makes it impossible to have a coherent thought in a debate. We actually like his tax plan, but we just wish he'd find a forum that he can speak in more eloquently than his predecessor as Governor, the big W. His candidacy is not dead yet, but his success is now dependent on someone else screwing up, which really should be giving him hope.

Then it was Herman's turn. We found him refreshing in his blunt honesty. We cringed a bit when he tried to wing answers on things he didn't actually have knowledge of, but you could forgive that because he's new at this. Then he committed the one unpardonable sin in this election cycle. He lied, or at the very least, withheld some unpleasantness about his personal life. Everyone from Nixon to Clinton will tell you that it's not the sin that kills you, but covering it up.

Now Newt is riding the crest of the wave. He's avoided Cain's fate on adultery because it was already out there for all the world to see. That and the ant-Mitt candidates are running out. He's a bit manic (We're thinking probably an official case of ADHD), but he does bring the fight to Obama. He also doesn't take any crap from the media. We enjoy that. He's a scrapper and not afraid to mix it up. Can he hold it together? If he follows the formula we'll know in about two weeks.

If Newt does screw up the next guy in line is Rick Santorum, who is as solidly conservative as any of them, and maybe more so. Still, he suffers from Pawlenty disease - you can accept the intellectual argument for him, but it's hard to get passionate. It's a sad truth, but to win, your supporters need passion.

Which brings us to the candidate with the most passionate supporters - Ron Paul. Can't fault him on passionate followers, but Dr. Paul is not a Republican, or a conservative. He is a Libertarian. We don't fault that. We lean towards Libertarianism in many areas. Still, the refrain heard in conservative circles is that his foreign policy is naive and dangerous. You need more than passionate supporters to carry the day.

Then there's the other guy - umm... umm... Jon something or other. Huntsman. Yeah that's right. I think. You can't even call him toast. He never warmed up.

Common Sense Dictates

So is the electorate fickle or demanding? Is the process working or hopelessly dysfunctional? Are we stuck with Mitt? (A guy we would have been happy to have over McCain in 2008...).

Mitt remains the guy to beat. He is prepared, has answers, and has the best temperament for what people look to in a President. He is calm, in charge and adult. The proverbial steady hand. He appears to be entirely scandal free, and owns his own decisions - just ask him about Romneycare. Still we are not in love.

Is the process working? In the desperate attempt to find a candidate better than Mitt, we have picked up candidates individually and examined each one closely, one at a time. Each on has disappointed us in one of the fundamental areas that we find critical in this election cycle. We are looking for a strong, principled candidate who will speak hard truths and defend America and the Constitution.

We are tired of childishness, of ignorance, and of dishonesty. We are looking for a grown up to take the White House away from the petulant child, and get the country back on track again. No apologies, no excuses, and no socialism.

So far, each of the anti-Mitts have fallen short on enough of these critical qualities that there is not even a mourning period when they get tossed. Fickle, no. There's just no time to waste on the wrong person. It's nothing personal. We just have more pressing things to worry about than a candidate's feelings.

We are doing the exact opposite of what we did in 2008 when the media crowned our nominee. We are paying attention and examining each candidate under a microscope. We are living up to the call of being educated voters. In our opinion, the process is working, and when the nominee is decided, he (or she) will be in top shape to take on Obama. And whether it is an anti-Mitt or Mitt, we will be confident that we have the best out of the pack that we are putting forward. The times demand it, and so does Common Sense.

RLB

Recrunching The Numbers

The Thomas Paine Project — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:52:41 GMT

We're sensing a bit of theater again - this time over the drama enfolding over the Super Committee. In the words of Shakespeare, it is "full of sound and fury", signifying nothing. Remember the last budget deal? We took a hard look in Crunching The Numbers . Our conclusions are being borne out. The debt limit was raised, and there were no real budget cuts achieved in return. Our credit rating was downgraded. We are now $15 trillion in debt and pushing at the raised debt ceiling already.

The Super Committee was tasked with finding $1.6 trillion in cuts. Not bad you say, that's 10%. Then there is the fine print. That $1.6 trillion is spread over 10 years, so we're really talking $160 billion per year. Let's re-run the numbers that we applied to the budget deal to this proposal and see what we come up with.

Just for fun, let's do the rest of the chart. You can refer back to "Crunching the Numbers" for the specifics of the math. It's pretty simple. Take the budget number and in this case, subtract $160 billion. Then add 7% to come up with next year's budget number. Repeat until your mind explodes.

Year Budget After Cuts Result

2102 $3.5 trillion no cuts $3.5 trillion

2013 $3.745 trillion $160 billion $3.585 trillion

2014 $3.996 trillion $160 billion $3.836 trillion

2015 $4.105 trillion $160 billion $3.944 trillion

2016 $4.220 trillion $160 billion $4.060 trillion

2017 $4.344 trillion $160 billion $4.184 trillion

2018 $4.477 trillion $160 billion $4.317 trillion

2019 $4.619 trillion $160 billion $4.459 trillion

2020 $4.771 trillion $160 billion $4.611 trillion

2021 $4.934 trillion $160 billion $4.934 trillion

We will be adding nearly $1.5 trillion to the budget - sadly that's not a big number anymore. There are no cuts. These estimates are especially generous as they assume that the annual $160 billion is trimmed off of the actual budgetary number and not the current CBO projected numbers.

The increases occur because of a law enacted in 1974 that calls for "baseline budgeting". Baseline budgeting assumes the current budget item will be funded at $100% regardless as to how much money has actually been spent. Then it adds a percentage onto the budget to account for inflation and increased demand for that service / department / procurement. The percentage has historically worked out to about 7% annually. This was done to allow for projections of what revenues would be required to fund future government obligations. This is also the law that gave us the CBO.

But wait, there's more. On that first budget number, $3.5 trillion, we only generate $1.9 billion in taxes. We borrow $1.6 trillion. We borrow it mostly from the Federal Reserve, which charges us interest, and prints currency when it runs out, generating inflation. The rest comes from hitting up China (about $800 billion), Japan (about the same), and such world powers as India, Korea, and really, whoever offers it to us.

Let's say that the tax rates remain flat. Until the unemployment numbers improve and we bring more taxpayers into the fold, that is what will happen. What does this steady budget growth do to our national debt? Just in principal alone we are adding $9.445 trillion - added onto the $ 15 trillion that we already owe, we're talking $24.445 trillion. It's a tiny bit better than the last deal, but still a suicide pact. Feeling queasy yet?

So taxes will need to be raised. We hate to tell you this kiddies, but they've already thought of that. The CBO projections (which come up with much friendlier numbers than I have) ASSUME that the Bush tax rates will expire in 2013 - not on the rich. On Everyone. Bill Gates, me, you and the guy driving the forklift at Walmart. There's a surprise on every page of the budget deal.

Effectively we have nearly doubled the national budget and brought the national debt just south of $25 trillion. The Super Committee is not cutting spending. It's all smoke and mirrors boys and girls. Nothing has changed, we just get to watch a really exciting soap opera for a couple of weeks. Boehner could just drop our drawers and ask us to bend over for all of the good his Super Committee will do for us.

Now for the capper - no Congress is bound by the acts of a previous Congress. This Super Committe deal only survives for the duration of this sitting Congress. When the next Congress is seated in 2013, they are under no obligation to honor this deal. Every number projection past 2013 is as substantive as pixie dust. We are reporting on what the Super Committee is proposing, which is nothing. It can get far worse in 2013.

It's not that there aren't plans out there that actually would do something constructive. Cut, Cap and Balance looks good. We've already endorsed Connie Mack's Penny Plan. It seems that the problem is what it always has been. Career politicians toting water for special interests, and spending all of their time figuring out how to keep their office.

As disclosure, I rounded off everything in dollars below billions. Less than 5 rounded down, greater than 5 rounded up. The math isn't all that hard. You would think the geniuses in DC could have figured this out. Well, they did figure it out. You've been lied to America. Don't forget today come election day 2012. Next time maybe they will kiss us first.

RLB

Tough Enough In A Brave New World

The Thomas Paine Project — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:26:13 GMT

These are tough times. The people in charge of America right now believe that the answer to these tough times is expanding the role of government. Conservatives believe, as Ronald Reagan so eloquently put it that government is not the solution, it is the problem.

That got us thinking of two great novels that explored government as "the solution"- "1984" by George Orwell, and "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Both books were extrapolations of what the authors could glean from the societies that they lived in. The extrapolations were chilling.

"1984" was the harsh totalitarianism - a police state relying on fear and repression. There were "little" wars fought for economic reasons in faraway lands that no one cared about. Print media (there was no internet then) was constantly being updated to reflect the new truth. Surveillance was everywhere. "Newspeak" sought to convey language in the least "offensive" way, and words did not necessarily reflect their traditional meaning. Sometimes they were the complete opposite. Sound familiar?

"Brave New World" dealt with the soft oppression of socialism, where those in charge knew what was best, made those decisions for all, and gave the illusion of freedom to the population.The societal emphasis was on attaining pleasure, and keeping society running smoothly. "Soma", a pleasure inducing drug, was used daily. Sort of reminds us of the glut of anti-depressants we consume in this country. Birth control drills were a part of the school curriculum, promiscuity was promoted, groupthink was the norm. A healthy lifestyle was promoted, and emphasis was made on keeping up a personal youthful appearance. There are pieces of this going on as well.

We find it interesting that both books speak to today's situation. Are we in danger of becoming either or both of these fictional societies? Have we already become them?

There are some striking similarities. Would we, as a people, be so accepting of survellance cameras everywhere prior to 9-11? Intrusive body searches for no good reason?

We look at the media outlets reporting the news. We find speculation reported as fact, and opinion taking the place of reporting. Generally it sides with the powers that be. In other countries that would be, as Rush has dubbed it, "state run media". The news is constantly updated with new "facts" that often contradict yesterday's story. This was especially true in the coverage of the Arab Spring uprisings, and the Gadaffi soap opera.

We are engaging enemy combatants in eight countries now - little "economic" wars? They certainly have not had much purpose lately other than to keep the military suppliers busy, and placing our troops in harm's way with no discernible policy guiding them. Yes, we have a good amount of "1984" going. Just no "thoughtcrime" yet - but it's being worked on...

How about "Brave New World"? - a vapid, self-absorbed society obsessed with personal pleasure and surface appearance.The population is easily distracted and compliant to directives because the experts "know better". They are more concerned with entertainment than education or achievement. It is a society that looks to the government to provide their happiness, rather than to looking inside. We see that in our society as well. Zuccotti Park is infested with it.

We, as a people, are coming to the same realization as the heroes of both novels - the sense that something just isn't right, and it hasn't been right for a long time. In many ways, it is how Obama became President. We knew things weren't right in 2008, and Obama talked a better game than McCain. Enough people bought in to it and here we are now. Things are REALLY not right.

The benefit of the mistake of electing Obama is that we have opened our eyes. We are not going to just blindly pick someone offering "hope" and "change". We want to make sure that we pick someone to make things right. It explains why we are not upset by the carnage in the GOP field. We're having a fight among friends to see who can take on Obama and come out on top. Tough times require a tough leader. The next guy up is going to need to be tough - not a prickly little pouting child.

Toughness is why the field is shifting - why Cain is still around and viable, why Newt is rising in the polls. It was why Perry started strong, and he still may find his footing. Then there's Mitt - for all of the shots taken at him, no one seems to muss up his hair. He's tough, whether you like him or not. Obama is going to let all hell loose on whoever our nominee is. Our pick will need to withstand it, fight back and win. We need to clear the field of the wusses.

So, are we destined to fall in to the societies depicted in either book? We think not. America has an advantage that no other country has. It is the first country founded on the principle that individual liberty trumps government control - right up to the point where your liberty infringes on mine. We understand that our side has the answers to what ails America right now. We need to get through the nomination and put up a candidate who is tough enough to turn back the Brave New World.

RLB

Diamonds Are For Never

The Thomas Paine Project — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:44:52 GMT

We haven't been shy in voicing our opinion that investing in gold at this point is a bad idea for a host of reasons - see Worshipping The Golden Calf . In short, to get the same return on investment as those people holding gold from it's last spike in the 80's (who only showed a profit on that gold in 2006), gold would have to double in price again. The people who really made money bought from 1996 through 2005 when gold was going for about $400.00 an ounce, a price it will return to when the current panic is over. The rule is buy low, sell high - not buy high and hope for higher.

For the part of the population who buys gold out of fear that the economy will collapse and civilization will end, well - think about it. Should the worst happen, the things of true value will not be a shiny, soft, yellow metal - it will be food, clothing, weapons and skills. No one is going to care about your stash of double eagles or Kruggerands.

Now that we've gotten all the gold traders upset again, we see a new and worse scam - investing in diamonds. We keep our ear to the ground on Talk Radio. It seems more and more hosts in conservative media are stepping away from gold, and hawking diamonds instead. We can only guess that they felt their reputations being endangered by shilling for a commodity overpriced out of fear, and have taken up an alternative. We wish that they would do the homework that they urge us to do.

Gold at least is fairly rare. Diamonds are not. The rarest of gemstones are natural emeralds, followed by rubies and sapphires. We say "natural" because most of the stones sold commercially in America are treated to enhance color. They are treated for color because the true brilliant natural stones are extremely rare. Many of the so-called "semi-precious" gemstones are rarer than diamonds. Tanzanite and black opals come to mind.

Diamonds are pretty in a bland sort of way. Their value however is not the result of rarity. They have benefitted from the supply chain being controlled by a cartel that would make OPEC blush. Initially it was DeBeers running the show, and limiting the supply available to market. Africa used to be the primary source of diamonds for the world, and DeBeers owned all of the mining operations on the continent. Over the past 20 years large caches of diamonds have been discovered in Russia, and the Russians have seen fit to cooperate in keeping prices inflated.

Recently Canada has been found to be diamond rich. In late October 2011, the United Nations lifted the ban on "blood" or "conflict" diamonds that were the focus of so much attention a few years back. It seems that either the human rights abuses have improved in Africa, or enough cash has passed though the correct hands at the U.N.

The commercials for the diamond brokers claim that no new mines are planned. That would be in the cartel countries. There are no new mines planned because there is an overabundance of supply that is slowly being introduced to market in measured doses much as a drip IV slowly introduces medicine in your system. Too much at once would crash the market. We do not see how the cartel can maintain it's grip with these new supplies of diamonds available.

Diamonds also have the best ad men in the world pushing them as the ultimate expression of love in a society that too often equates love with commercial transactions. Traditionally, the gemstone of expressing love has been the ruby for the wealthy, and the garnet for the not so wealthy. Oh, and that traditional gold wedding band. Madison Avenue and DeBeers have elevated the durability of the diamond to symbolize the hope that love would be equally durable - in a land where the divorce rate hovers around 50 percent.

The diamonds being sold for investment are claimed to be among the top half percent of diamonds in quality. Seems like a good selling point until it is factored in that we are talking the supply released to market. The numbers do not include stones held in reserve and not available to market.

Also not included in that equation is the subjective nature in assigning a dollar value to a diamond. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, and priced accordingly. A diamond is valued on size, clarity, color and to a lesser degree cut. A dozen gemologists will quote twelve different values for the same stone.

Promises of future price spikes because the Chinese are buying them up (because gold is overinflated) will be met by the standard laws of economics. As OPEC keeps the price of oil controlled by adjusting supply, the current cartel will do the same. That is, until the wild card new supplies start coming to market.

Common sense Dictates

By any math and any measure, the price of diamonds is already overinflated and artificial. Our fear is being marketed to, and some are succumbing to it. Having our savings and retirements nibbled at by inflation and eaten outright by stock market swings is not building confidence. Neither is the stagnant unemployment situation or the uncertainty over the economy in general. It is understandable that people want to protect their savings.

We are not saying that there is no money to be made in these commodities, but it is a casino, and every gamble favors the house. The only people who win 100% of the time are the brokers who make money on every transaction. There is nothing inherently wrong in that - as the saying goes, let the buyer beware.

We would hope that our readers would educate themselves before dipping a toe in or diving headfirst. There is no easy money. There are no guarantees. As an investment, we see diamonds as an even worse idea than gold. Diamond pricing is both manipulated and subjective. If pending Armageddon is your reason for buying, the shiny little stones will be pretty useless. You would have done better by investing in things that would keep you alive and sustained.

More than likely the economy will come around again (we expect starting in January of 2013 as the moving vans load up at the White House). When that happens, gold and diamonds will morph from investment vehicles back to what they are intended to be - jewelry. So says Common Sense.

RLB

9 9 9 Versus 20 Off The Top

The Thomas Paine Project — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 23:52:01 GMT

We're going to stick with actual issues rather than take part in the media circus sucking all of the air out of the room. There has been little in the way of policy proposals offered by any of the GOP candidates. Two bright and bold dpeartures from the assault of talking points and uninspired sound bites have been in the area of tax reform. Herman Cain has offered 9 9 9, and Rick Perry has offered the 20% flat tax postcard.

Both proposals are bold. Both solve problems that are frustrating to the taxpaying public. Both proposals are introduce new problems. Cain's proposal is a simple reduction in income tax rates to 9% for personal and corporate rates, elimination of all deductions, and the introduction of a 9% federal sales tax, the so called "fair" tax, a consumption tax. Perry's proposal pegs the income tax rate at 20 % with very limited deductions - a flat tax. We have examined both in theory back in April of this year, see A Taxing Problem

Now we have actual proposals to examine. Since Cain went first, we will start with 9 9 9. It is obviously the proposal of a businessman with a marketing background. We actually like it. Cutting income tax rates to 9% with no deductions will immediately free up money in the private sector.

Under the current system, after deductions, the tax rate paid to the treasury winds up being about 20 % of taxable income. This immediately cuts in half the real tax rate. That money gets to stay with the taxpayer - individual or corporate, and would provide an instant and real stimulus to the economy.

His plan introduces a federal sales tax to make up the shortfall from the cut in income taxes. He claims that the revenue generated will make the plan revenue neutral, and remove the drag on the economy that a high income tax creates. We don't know if his numbers are correct. Numbers can be massaged to say anything, as we found out during the budget "deal". Still Art Laffer (of "Laffer Curve" fame during the Reagan years) has signed on. We would have to try it to see if it works as a matter of practice.

We support a consumption tax over an income tax in theory, and have floated the idea to be tried in a limited form in Net Taxes . We say "in theory" because we have real concerns that without repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (authorizing a federal income tax), the consumtion tax will be adding a new form of taxation without guaranteeing relief from other areas of taxation.

Cain's plan deliberately introduces this new tax without addressing the Constitutional mandate of the income tax. He sells it by trading off on cutting income tax rates. We take Mr. Cain at his word that this is what he intends, but Mr. Cain will serve at maximum 8 years. Congresses flip back and forth all the time. Without elimination of the income tax, future administrations will have the ability to raise both the income tax and the sales tax to whatever level they deem appropriate.

For this reason we find 9 9 9 to be a half-measure that leaves the door open to future mischief. Mr.Cain would do better to promote a federal sales tax linked to the elimination of the income tax. Still, it is a bold idea, and more worthy of our attention than his current troubles.

The Perry Plan is a flat 20% income tax, with very limited deductions. It is a good attempt to address the concerns of the taxpaying public's frustration within the current structure of an income tax. It steps entirely away from the idea of the "fair" tax proposal, and settles instead on simplifyng the current tax code.

You've seen the prop - the postcard. Write down your income. Deduct $12,500.00 for every member of the household. Eliminate all deductions except the home mortgage deduction and charitable contributions. What's left is your taxable income. A family of 4 making $50K per year pays no taxes. $44K is the median income for the country. Simple, elegant and intelligent. We like this idea as well.

He adds on sweeteners for the conservative base as well - capping and reducing spending, balancing the budget, elimination of corporate and farm subsidies, elimination of capital gains taxes, and elimination of the death tax. All of these add-ons make the idea even better for us. So, what's the down side?

It's optional. Channeling Obama, Governor Perry said "if you like your old tax system, you can keep it". That's a problem, especially for the middle class. The rich have armies of CPAs on payroll to keep taxes to a minimum - just ask Warren Buffet, and Michel Moore. The poor will continue to not pay into the system. The middle class has the dilemma.

Now instead of spending hours poring over receipts and forms, or hiring H & R Block to do it for you, the middle class will be doing this both ways to figure out which way works out best for them. Let's say that family of four makes $60K. Under the Perry Plan their tax comes out to be $2000.00. Does it work out better under the old system? It depends on your tax professional, or your own skill with numbers and ability to absorb mental pain. There is no real reform that simplifies the tax code for middle class taxpayers.

Governor Perry has put out half-measure as well. We support every detail of the plan, as well as his add-ons. We do not support it being optional, because by being optional, it does nothing to benefit the middle class, and allows all of the "loopholes" to cotinue for those who profit from them, rich and poor. Being "optional" is not tax reform. It is a burden on the middle class and smoke and mirrors for everyone else.

The only way this works is to make this change the law of the land for everyone. Then it is real reform. There are no Constitutional issues to address, just legislative ones. Embrace your idea Governor Perry. It is a bold plan, be bold with it.

Common Sense Dictates

While we are embroiled in gossip and scandal, the true scandal in this Presidential race is that almost no one is adressing the issues that affect everyday citizens. Mr. Cain and Governor Perry have attempted to do just that, and unfortunately, they are being overshadowed by the media focusing its attention on bread and circuses. We commend both gentlemen for introducing some actual ideas instead of running from them.

It's time for the rest of the GOP pack to join in with some specific solutions. With the exception of Newt Gingrich, who has a paper on everything at his website (take a hint Newt - most people are too busy keeping ahead of the economy to read one of your papers) and Ron Paul, everyone is spending all of their time trying to not screw up. It makes all of you invisible.

The country is not interested in voting for someone who relies on vague platitudes and scripted oratory to lead the country. We tried that last time and it didn't work out so well. We're not interested in sound bites or bumper sticker slogans either.The electorate wants bold and specific ideas. Cain and Perry have at least done that. The rest need to join in or go home. So says Common Sense.

RLB

Have Drone, Don't Need To Travel

The Thomas Paine Project — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:39:00 GMT

Muammar Gadaffi is dead. We all know that, except for the conspiracy theorists who believe him to be alive and well and planning his comeback. We saw the tape, and the pics of him on display in a meatlocker, and don't really think he will be booking Beyonce for a concert again.

The people of Libya have spoken - or more accurately a group of animals turned on one of it's own. As well as 53 Gadaffi loyalists who were bound and killed, and whose bodies have been rotting in a hotel in Sirte for the past week. So much for burying the dead in 24 hours.

We shudder to contemplate how this will translate out as the new leadership consolidates power. They have already declared that their system will be sharia based. We're having a hard time seeing how replacing a repressive system with a more repressive one is an improvement.

President Obama has been given the honor of yet another victory lap on this one. It was hard to see a connection in the initial reports - a NATO strike took out Gadaffi's convoy (French, maybe the Brits) and he was dragged out of hiding by an angry mob of Libyans who then killed him and desecrated his body. There didn't seem to be any American fingerprints on this at all (except for the American money paying for all of this). Then word comes out that the NATO strike was really a Predator Drone strike, and we don't let the Europeans play with those particular wartoys. We're kind of selfish that way.

The mainstream media has been hyperventilating about how how our current President now has more kills than his predecessor on "valued targets". Therein lies the problem, and the dilemma. First, President Obama does not have more kills, He has killed no one. He has just delivered more orders to kill. Credit for bagging this particular thug belongs to an intelligence analyst who put together the pieces, and the drone operator who blew Gadaffi's convoy to pieces. The rest of the credit goes to a mob who then tore Gadaffi himself to pieces.

The dilemma is a moral one. A pattern has emerged over time that the preferred weapon of choice in dealing with unpleasant people that we don't like is to kill them and send them to meet their virgins. Osama bin Laden comes to mind. The SEAL team strike went off through the skill of the SEALs involved over the problems encountered during the mission. Reports of the mishaps have varied, but losing a stealth helicopter and having the Chinese inspect it were among them. Still kudos to the SEALs for fulfilling their mission with a bullet in it.

The powers that be have since modified a battlefield weapon to deliver justice to a select few. The Predator drone seems to fit flawlessly into a no-risk way to get the job done. There have been literally hundreds of badguys dispatched since we figured out how to do it - mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also in Yemen and Somalia.

Under normal circumstances we have no problem with it. It is the same theory as using nuclear weapons in WWII rather than invading Japan - it saves the lives of those serving in our armed forces during wartime. Our guys are under attack? Send in a little air power to take care of the problem. It's a valid military tactic on the battlefield.

The moral problem is using this type of technology to hunt down and target someone off the field of battle, and then killing them with it. It was done a few weeks ago in the case of Awlaki, who was an American citizen. We shared our disapproval for the execution in Another Inconvenient Truth . It was done this past week in the case of Gadaffi, with whom we were not even technically at war. We were just providing NATO with intel for it's war with Libya. We were only "assisting" in a "kinetic military action."

This type of thing has been frowned on since the Carter Administration, which put in place the executive order barring assassinating foreign heads of state, regardless of how much they annoy you. It was an order that was even supported by George W Bush, who after his questionable foray into Iraq did not execute Saddam Hussein in his spiderhole, but handed him over to the authorities for a trial. For all of the talk about how this was a personal thing for W, because of Saddam trying to kill W's father, he still managed to deliver him to the Iraqi government and legal system in one piece. Then we got him a barber and a nice suit of clothes.

Of course you could always argue that WE didn't kill Gadaffi. They did. We didn't actually shoot him in the head, as we did with OBL, or kill him with the drone itself, as we did with Awlaki. We just made sure that he was available and softened up for the crowd. We were helping out, and "leading from behind". That phrase keeps taking on new meaning everyday.

Which is bringing up a troubling pattern. It is looking more and more like the preferred method for dealing with "unsavory" characters around the globe is summary execution. We shared with you the Reuters story put out after the Awlaki hit about the unnamed council of advisors who reviews and recommends who is "targeted" to the President. After all, there are some people that you can't try in a civilian court, due to security concerns. And you can't just let them wander around making plans to kill Americans. So they need to be killed.

Or, you could open a military prison to segregate and try the accused in a more secure format to assure that justice was being delivered. You could open it in say... Guantanamo Bay? Bush's orders were to capture and interrogate them. Not to send in a SEAL team to pop a cap in their heads. Or to send them an exploding gift from 50,000 feet up. While we're at it, you might want to give these guys clean facilities and clothes, korans, prayer rugs, special food to accommodate their religious views, and a balmy tropical climate with a view of the beach.

If language means something, there has been a subtle twist that is very telling. American decision makers have shifted from the Bush vow to "capture or kill bin Laden", to the Obama promise to "kill or capture bin Laden". The phrasing indicates a change in what the best outcome is seen as. Listen when the Administration speaks - be it Obama, Hillary, Panetta or whoever - "kill or capture Gadaffi" was the mantra for the last two weeks. The next time they can just insert the name of the most troubling bad guy left on the list. He'll be the one with the drone over his shoulder.

We find it disturbing that their is a council of advisors whispering in the ear of the President that certain "troublemakers" need to be "targeted". We find it more disturbing that the President of the United States of America seems to be okay with this and feels comfortable in the role of judge, jury and executioner. That has traditionally been the role of kings. We don't do kings here.

We know that many of you may disagree with us on this one, as you did in our piece on the Awlaki hit. The Predator drone is a useful weapon on the battlefield in the preserving lives of our troops, and in rolling back harm to them. It is not a six-shooter in the hands of some paladin to deliver justice on a case by case basis.

This is especially true when the target is an American citizen under the protection of the Constitution (regardless of whether or not he respected it), or a foreign head of state (though in dispute) that was not at war with us, who presented no threat to us, and who we didn't even care about until the French got their panties in a bunch.

Summary execution is not justice, not legal, and a terrible tool to place in the hands of a man who seems all too eager to use it. It should not be the method of choice in singling out inconvenient troublemakers. We wore the role of policeman for the world uncomfortably. It should be all the more uncomfortable to be the hitman for the world. So says Common Sense.

RLB

Debating Debates

The Thomas Paine Project — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:49:25 GMT

We at TPP are walking away from the Vegas "debate" disappointed. We did the quick analysis last night and called it a breakfast buffet. The quick recap is that Romney was the eggs - lots of him, but not really very satisfying. Cain and Gingrich were the bacon - a guilty pleasure. Santorum was the potatoes - hearty but bland. Bachmann and Perry are toast - literally. And Ron Paul is the salsa - some tasty stuff and some stuff that burns most people, and there's no way to separate the bad from the good.

We liked putting a different spin on it, but as we redid the play by play, our disappointment rose. This was yet one more showcase for Mitt Romney, and the "moderator" Anderson Cooper, who did his best to ask inane or gotcha questions. This was borne out with the final question about the hostage / Palestinian swap in Israel, which had a test run earlier in the day when sprung on Herman Cain by Wolf Blitzer.

The debates have not served the electorate well. They have been a hatchet job by sound bite, alternately ignoring or taking down anyone who represents a serious challenge to Romney. You've seen the pattern - Pawlenty, Bachman, Perry, and now Cain were presented as an alternative to the inevitable, and then beaten down by the media, and the pundits. The rest of the field joins in just to get some attention. Ron Paul has been complaining about this since day one.

If our only criteria for choosing a nominee were these debates as presented, we are left with not a two man race, but a one and a half man race. The one man is Romney. The half is Herman Cain who was bloodied up pretty well last night, but he's still standing. For now. Everyone else has been marginalized (Bachmann, Paul, Perry), dropped out (Pawlenty, and by default Christie and Palin who could see the writing on the wall) or has just been ignored (Gingrich, Santorum).

We need to hear these candidates in different forums, but unfortunately, this is the only forum that gets national media attention.We have been warned that Rick Perry was horrible at debates, and he has lived down to that reputation. He comes across well in other forums. Cain is good at debates and not so good in speaking off the cuff during interviews.

Gingrich has consistently presented good ideas and calls out the media on their games whenever he can. He just seldom gets a microphone. Santorum doesn't give sound bite answers, he explains his positions completely. He has not been given the opportunity to do so in this forum.

Bachmann and Paul are not crazy (though we disagree with Rep. Paul on his many of his positions about foreign policy, and generally agree with him on fiscal matters). They are being presented as such by the media who has settled on their candidate - Mitt Romney.

We are not ripping on Mitt either. Mitt has had 5 years of practice at running for President, and he's good at it. He may actually be the best candidate of the bunch, we just don't know. Romneycare is a problem, and it is a problem, in part, because it is presented as a sound bite during a 60 second answer in a debate forum. The problem is the forum at this point.

There is no way to put 8 or 10 people up on a stage, limit them to 60 second answers, ask them foolish questions, and expect to come up with a more educated opinion of anyone running. All we are watching is a cage match, DC style. A debate forum works between 2 candidates, debating each other. Lincoln / Douglas. Kennedy / Nixon. Reagan / Carter. Group debates serve no one, which is proven by the fact that all of the network sponsors, including FoxNews, delivered the same poor product.

Now that we have stated the obvious, what is the solution? How do we get to know our candidates in a meaningful way? How do we inform our vote?

Here's an idea, which we feel will be helpful. Remember "60 Minutes" before the Dan Rather meltdown? Nothing brought more fear into a public official's heart than the sight of Mike Wallace charging into the office with a camera crew in tow. Interviews were tough, talking points and spin were dismissed out of hand, and the subject of the interview was pressed, and pressed hard. Maybe it's time for Chris to pick up his father's mantle.

We suggest a one hour interview for each candidate, in the same manner. The live interview will be videoed, and presented, UNEDITED in whatever media forums are available online and on television. It doesn't need to be Chis Wallace interviewing, and it certainly shouldn't be FoxNews sponsoring this. They will be accused of softballing. It also shouldn't be a mainstream media outlet, which just can't resist the gotcha "journalism".

Ideally, this is a job for an outside, but respected conservative group. The Heritage Foundation comes to mind as a possibility. They can partner with a media outlet - C-SPAN, for example, to access video distrbution. PBS can be enlisted as well as part of their mandate is public education. Everyone gets a PBS station on broadcast TV.

Of greatest importance will be the integrity of the journalist and the research staff assigned to this project. The interviewer must be willing to challenge non-answers, push past talking points, and remain professionally impartial. Research behind the interviews must be accurate and documented. Everything needs to be above board to be trusted.

We feel that this would better serve the needs of the electorate at this point. It would certainly provide an opportunity for voters to educate themselves as opposed to the pop entertainment that the debates have failed to do. A debate is a forum for two opposing sides to argue the value of their ideas. It is not a valuable tool in discerning a "winner" between a group of people who have largely similar views. And they do have largely similar views, pre-eminent among them, that President Obama needs to go. Common Sense agrees with that premise.

RLB

Is It That Hard To Get Good Help?

The Thomas Paine Project — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:35:44 GMT

Let's get this straight - a dual-national Iranian used car salesman contracts out a Mexican drug cartel hit man to kill the Saudi Ambassador to America by blowing up his favorite DC restaurant. Then, if there's time, blow up the Israeli embassy. All of it is paid for by the Iranian government. That was the announcement made by Eric Holder, on a day when the focus had been on him being subpoenaed by Congress on the "Fast & Furious" scandal. Where's Jack Bauer when we need him?

The used car salesman had been in custody since late September. We could see the lack of an announcement immediately, since one would assume that the Justice Department was trying to get his government sponsored partner, who is apparently in Iran. We assume that we will never hear from him now that he knows that we know.

Also in the news is the "underwear bomber" trial, at which our suspect plead guilty, and went on a rant about how it would serve Allah for him to ignite his crotch. The absurdity of these two incidents got us to thinking - If you had the funding and the motive of Al Qaeda or Iran, wouldn't you recruit your terrorists from someplace other than the village idiot pool?

Think about it - Time Square bomber had to be let back into his apartment because he left his keys in the SUV that failed to blow up. The toy plane bomber (who lived in his mother's basement) was going to blow up the Pentagon with a plane that could hold enough C-4 to maybe shatter a couple of windows and crack the stone face of the building.

Then there was the guy trying to smuggle explosives onto a jetliner in shampoo bottles. We're still paying for that one. Remember the shoe bomber? Probably every time you go to the airport. All unsuccessful, and all idiots. Who is running the HR department at terrorism central?

Ahmadinejad and Zawahiri are smart guys - by training an engineer and a physician. Ahmadinejad has his own version of the CIA. Zawahiri hired 20 guys to crash some jets on 9/11 - not an easy task to accomplish. It seems a little odd that people that smart would have such a long string of clowns screwing up on the job.

We're not wishing them success, we are just saying that the template seems wrong. It was the toy airplane terrorist that focused the issue for us. It never made sense. Any remote control hobbyist can tell you that most of the planes are too small to hold a significant amount of explosive. Even if a big enough plane was found, the added weight of the explosive and the detonator would make the plane too heavy to fly. Let's assume that weight was not a problem - you would have to install the "payload" so that it was perfectly balanced, or you would not have control of the plane when airborne.

Let's say some genius figured that part out. The exterior walls of the Pentagon are granite. The windows are reinforced, and quite likely bulletproof on the sides facing the general public. An actual jet flown into the building would cause significant damage - we have seen that happen (and yes, we are aware of the conspiracy theories...). A remote control toy? You can see why we have a hard time making that connection.

We can buy these guys being "lone wolf" terrorists who are all hyped up by the nightly news and the message at the mosque with the firebrand Imam - just not all that intelligent. In general, most of them fit that mold - losers who are semi-educated just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be able to carry out even a simple plan.

Most have been on the FBIs radar for posting lunacy on Facebook or the Al Qaeda dating site. Most have been plied by our G-men with compliments, cash and even phony supplies, further underlining that these 'terrorists" are too stupid to do anything on their own without help and encouragement.

The notable exception to this caricature is the Ft. Hood shooter. He illustrates the kind of damage that a trained and committed nutjob can deliver. This would be the kind of man Iran or Al Qaeda would recruit - military training, easy access to a target, deep commitment to the cause, and effectiveness in carrying out the mission.

This begs the question as to why this used car salesman is being linked very improbably with the Iranian government, and the Mexican Drug cartels, to assassinate the Ambassador of a country that is a primary funding source to fundamentalist Islam. In a restaurant. With a bomb. Colonel Mustard, maybe?

There's a difference between connecting the dots and hopscotching all over the place to do so. Look at all the enemies in this scenario - Iran serial meddling all over the middle east, Mexico whose troubles are spilling north of the border (including the White House because of "Fast & Furious"). A naturalized traitor to his new country. And he's a USED CAR SALESMAN -he makes his living selling old polluted clunkers instead of new Chevy Volts. All that we are missing is a Tea Party connection.

Having him be another idiot better serves the cause of nanny-statism. The shoe bomber got us taking off our shoes. The shampoo bomber got us buying toiletries at the airport, or labeling what we bring on board in tiny little containers. Underwear guy brought body scanners and groping into fashion. Toy plane guy will probably create some new federal permit or regulation to protect us from inept wannabes. If used car man was just another idiot, government could use the opportunity to further stick it's nose into our lives.

Focusing attention on used car man does nothing productive. Iran denies the whole thing and laughs at us. Mexico is PO'd about our DOJ arming the cartels they are fighting, and concentrating on that. The cartels don't care. The Saudis are not impressed. Should used car man actually live to the point that he or his hit man would take on the Israeli Embassy, we are confident that Israel can handle it's own security. About the only people adversely affected by this are used car man, and people who will no longer eat in restaurants that Ambassadors eat in because of all the hype. Probably not good news for restaurant owners or the economy.

Even Obama doesn't benefit from this attention. It just focuses people on what are perceived by many to be his weak points. Assuming that all of it is true, our intelligence is now compromised, and the evil Iranians will just come up with a new plan and a new dupe.

The only person to benefit from this "announcement" is Attorney General Eric Holder, who has changed the news leads from his being summoned to Congress to testify about his gun-running program to the Mexican cartels. Now they read of this diabolical Iranian plot. It really smells of him trying to cover his own butt. Which is yet another reason for him to go.

So we ask again - is it that hard to get good help? We ask that of Iran, we ask that of Al Qaeda. We even need to ask that of President Obama. It shouldn't bee all that hard to come up with an Attorney General who doesn't hide behind a terrorist plot when Congress wants some answers on a stupid idea. So says Common Sense.

RLB