I started this blog in the hope that a civil discussion could be had between various points of view. That has not happened, but it is still a fantasy I cherish for our political discourse. Sadly, a palatable lie wins over a hard truth every single time. This prevents everyone from saying the truth, even at a time when everyone I know wants to hear it. Here is my take on a couple of significant issues.
-environment
Global warming is far from a scientific consensus. The data are conflicting, and there has been sad manipulation and politicization of the data. As a world, let a lone a country, there are only a few choices and sources-
-oil/coal/gas/biofuels- all these produce CO2, and are messy to get
-nuclear- efficient, produces remarkably little waste, everyone is afraid of it
-solar/wind/wave- great ideas, expensive, uses a lot of land, not practical for large power needs
-use less power, limiting industry, broadcasting and comfort
You only get one or a combo of these. Stop posturing. What do you want? And no whining about what might have been. That's the tactic of a back bencher, not a leader or a thinker. Unless we are willing to use much less energy, we are locked into fossil fuels for the next 20-30 years, even if we ramp up nuclear and other sources. Therefore it is highly counterproductive to halt or restrict drilling in the Gulf or the Keystone pipeline. We should be funding R and D while aggressively increasing home production of oil/coal.
-deficit
We can not continue this level of spending. No government can run deficits like this. These are worse than in wartime (well, actually we are at war). Taxes alone will not solve the problem. Besides the drag on economic growth that the required tax increases would produce, there's a very nice calculation of the results of taxing only the wealthiest 1 or 2%. ALL their income plus ALL the profits of the Fortune 500 companies will not balance the budget. So taxation is simply not the solution. Therefore to claim that we can tax out way out of our deficit is false at best.
We will have to cut programs for entitlement. There is no other option, even if we increase taxes.
-entitlements
We have dramatically expanded the original concept of Social Security. Take a look at its original provisions and it is readily affordable. Since its inception we have introduced- payments in excess of contributions, cost of living adjustments, Medicare (the 9000 pound whale in the room), a drug benefit, SSI disability, payment for medical devices like motorized wheelchairs.
There is simply no way we can pay for this as currently conceived. Medicare in particular is a terrible drain, with costs growing well above the rate of inflation, and well above the rate of return expected from a 'trust' fund.
The entitlements remind me of the Schlieffen Plan of 1905 with which Germany opened WW1. Shlieffen's original plan called for a strength ratio of 7:1 in favor of the right wing. His plan ignored two critical issues. First, French railways were insufficient to provide supply for so many soldiers. Second, there were not enough soldiers, even as planned, to cover the necessary front, as pointed out by Foch in 1912. In execution Moltke did even worse, cutting the strength ratio down to 3:1 and unbelievably detaching yet more troops to Russia and Belgium.
Like entitlements, Schlieffen's plan was faulty in conception and execution.
We now construe these programs as helping America's weakest and most vulnerable. But no one even asks any more 'is this government's business?' Did these people die in the streets previously? Did people rot in the streets without motorized wheelchairs? If we admit the concept the government is responsible for individual welfare, as opposed to the welfare of the Body Politic, where can such an idea be limited? The idea allows government to impose all sorts of requirements and to fund things that ought to be private.
We will have to choose what government is for. And it is both mathematically and philosophically unsustainable to make government responsible for individuals.
To me, the items listed above are ineluctable conclusions from data. I await someone who will show me why hat I have written is not true. If what I have written is true then any politician who says otherwise is just pandering. You look for yourselves and decide who is pandering worse. Trying to sell America more governmental care and programs at a time of Trillion dollar deficits is foolhardy and highly irresponsible. Simply saying Bush did badly does not address where we are NOW, and what choices we have to make.
The socialistic social model of benefits from the State funded by taxes is, or should be, conceptually and practically over.
Any arguments? If not, why would anyone vote for Obama?
Ted
-environment
Global warming is far from a scientific consensus. The data are conflicting, and there has been sad manipulation and politicization of the data. As a world, let a lone a country, there are only a few choices and sources-
-oil/coal/gas/biofuels- all these produce CO2, and are messy to get
-nuclear- efficient, produces remarkably little waste, everyone is afraid of it
-solar/wind/wave- great ideas, expensive, uses a lot of land, not practical for large power needs
-use less power, limiting industry, broadcasting and comfort
You only get one or a combo of these. Stop posturing. What do you want? And no whining about what might have been. That's the tactic of a back bencher, not a leader or a thinker. Unless we are willing to use much less energy, we are locked into fossil fuels for the next 20-30 years, even if we ramp up nuclear and other sources. Therefore it is highly counterproductive to halt or restrict drilling in the Gulf or the Keystone pipeline. We should be funding R and D while aggressively increasing home production of oil/coal.
-deficit
We can not continue this level of spending. No government can run deficits like this. These are worse than in wartime (well, actually we are at war). Taxes alone will not solve the problem. Besides the drag on economic growth that the required tax increases would produce, there's a very nice calculation of the results of taxing only the wealthiest 1 or 2%. ALL their income plus ALL the profits of the Fortune 500 companies will not balance the budget. So taxation is simply not the solution. Therefore to claim that we can tax out way out of our deficit is false at best.
We will have to cut programs for entitlement. There is no other option, even if we increase taxes.
-entitlements
We have dramatically expanded the original concept of Social Security. Take a look at its original provisions and it is readily affordable. Since its inception we have introduced- payments in excess of contributions, cost of living adjustments, Medicare (the 9000 pound whale in the room), a drug benefit, SSI disability, payment for medical devices like motorized wheelchairs.
There is simply no way we can pay for this as currently conceived. Medicare in particular is a terrible drain, with costs growing well above the rate of inflation, and well above the rate of return expected from a 'trust' fund.
The entitlements remind me of the Schlieffen Plan of 1905 with which Germany opened WW1. Shlieffen's original plan called for a strength ratio of 7:1 in favor of the right wing. His plan ignored two critical issues. First, French railways were insufficient to provide supply for so many soldiers. Second, there were not enough soldiers, even as planned, to cover the necessary front, as pointed out by Foch in 1912. In execution Moltke did even worse, cutting the strength ratio down to 3:1 and unbelievably detaching yet more troops to Russia and Belgium.
Like entitlements, Schlieffen's plan was faulty in conception and execution.
We now construe these programs as helping America's weakest and most vulnerable. But no one even asks any more 'is this government's business?' Did these people die in the streets previously? Did people rot in the streets without motorized wheelchairs? If we admit the concept the government is responsible for individual welfare, as opposed to the welfare of the Body Politic, where can such an idea be limited? The idea allows government to impose all sorts of requirements and to fund things that ought to be private.
We will have to choose what government is for. And it is both mathematically and philosophically unsustainable to make government responsible for individuals.
To me, the items listed above are ineluctable conclusions from data. I await someone who will show me why hat I have written is not true. If what I have written is true then any politician who says otherwise is just pandering. You look for yourselves and decide who is pandering worse. Trying to sell America more governmental care and programs at a time of Trillion dollar deficits is foolhardy and highly irresponsible. Simply saying Bush did badly does not address where we are NOW, and what choices we have to make.
The socialistic social model of benefits from the State funded by taxes is, or should be, conceptually and practically over.
Any arguments? If not, why would anyone vote for Obama?
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment