Obtuse Observer

May 18, 2012

Global Warming, Alternative Energy and Stupidity

Filed under: AGW,Al Gore,Anthropogenic Global Warming,Generational Investment Managment — Obtuse Observer @ 10:36 pm

Keep these things in mind

  • Man made global warming is NOT settled science
  • CO2 is a lagging not leading indicator of global warming, demonstrated in the 1990s and a point of fact on which Al Gore lost in court in the UK over his alarmist movie. 
  • Al Gore’s film had many other inaccuracies determined by the court including (please visit link for list of 35 errors):
  1. the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets will cause seas to rise 6cm over the next 100 years not 6M
  2. the polar bears drowned in a blizzard
  3. Kilimanjaro’s summit doesn’t get above freezing – the glacier melted away because of deforestation
  4. Lake Chad isn’t drying up – irresponsible irrigation and other human use techniques are bleeding it like the Soviets bled the Aral Sea
  • Increased CO2 may lead to increased temperatures, or it may lead to greater water evaporation and increased clouds etc – we are not certain. 
  • The Sun is a more important driver of global climate than an SUV or an entire planet of SUVs.
  • Historically warming periods (the Roman warming and Medieval Warming) are associated with periods of affluence and population growth.  Historically cooling periods (Dark Ages, Little Ice Age) are associated with plague, famine, competition for dwindling resources and war.
  • Al Gore’s hockey stick graph actually (actually Michael Mann’s) was long ago removed from the IPCC’s reports.  Those reports have been updated further and predictions have been reduced.  Predictions are based on modeling which are subject to widely fluctuating results with small variable changes.
  • On a basis frequent enough to have become old news we read about “scientists” who fudged their data in order to reach their dire predictions.
  • Al Gore is worth about $100,000,000.00 by trading carbon credits with his firm Generational Investment Management – which positioned itself to benefit from alarmist legislation to reduce global warming.  His global warming alarmism is self-interested.
  • Global warming fears have lead to foolish investments of tax dollars such as Solyndra and lead Barak Obama to declare that when he became President he’d tax carbon enough make building coal burning plants a bankrupting event.

Those are just a couple of the quantifiable and terrible results from the sky is falling thinking.  The next time you’re urged to “please do something” about global warming consider this…

1) Global warming is real (there is evidence that this is true though that it has currently arrested.  There is also evidence that says climate is dynamic and changes considerably over time and does so on established cycles)

2) Global warming is man made

3) Global warming is a bad thing (but historically we know the opposite to be true)

4) Taking drastic measures with known quantifiable costs in the short term will reduce global warming

5) The reduction is desirable (historical evidence denies this)

6) The cost of reduction is less than the cost of doing nothing.

All… All of those must be true to rationally justify flushing $500,000,000 down the Solyndra toilet.  Next time we’re asked to spend it to save the planet ask if those doing the flushing can answer those questions in the affirmative.

Here’s a more detailed (well footnoted) and scathing article on global warming alarmism by Richard Lindzen who is is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.  Those of you suspicious of my bullets…. read the scientist’s report.

May 2, 2012

Obama Nervous?

From recent Dana Milbank article.. “preezy is making me queasy because his nonstop campaigning is looking, well, sleazy — and his ad suggesting that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have killed Osama bin Laden is just the beginning of it.”  Yikes!  This criticism isn’t coming from Obama’s right but from a liberal writer.

Here’s more from the article:  In a political culture that long ago surrendered to the permanent campaign, Obama has managed to take things to a whole new level. According to statistics compiled for a book to be published this summer, the president has already set a record for total first-term fundraisers — 191 — and that’s only through March 6. Measured in terms of events that benefit his reelection bid, Obama’s total (inflated in part by relaxed fundraising rules) exceeds the combined total of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.

That’s a lot of fundraisers!

Back to the ad Milbank referred to:  YouTube Preview Image

Arianna Huffington called the ad despicable.    YouTube Preview Image

From the other side of the political landscape comes an editorial from Peggy Noonan.  She suggests that all of this is evidence that Obama is running scared, “The old Washington gossip was that the Obama campaign was too confident, now it is that they are nervous.”

 

April 24, 2012

George Carlin Get’s it All Wrong

 

Mr. Carlin begins with a false premise which presumes that wealth, money or income is the government’s and they decide how much to give people and continues by operating under a mistaken understanding of what conservatives actually advocate.

Conservatives don’t say we need to give rich people more money.  Conservatives assert that EVERYONE should be allowed to keep more of their OWN money because; it is theirs, they know better what they want to do with it, they use it more efficiently and sucking dollars out of the economy in a recession lengthens a recession. 

The notion that the fruits of our labor belong to the government for reapportionment is anathema to the American experiment in liberty.  For crying out loud the fundamental basis for our revolution was taxation.  Next time you read a comment like Carlin’s give a moment to consider what it implies rather than simply react to its demagogic appeal.

Carlin; often funny. A deep thinker? Not so much.

April 4, 2012

Obama and the Budget

Filed under: National Debt,Ryan Budget — Obtuse Observer @ 9:38 pm

Some excerpts regarding the Ryan Budget from President Obama’s recent address to Associated Press luncheon at the American Society of Newspaper Editors convention in Washington, D.C. (full transcript here)

Now, the proponents of this budget will tell us we have to make all these draconian cuts because our deficit is so large; this is an existential crisis, we have to think about future generations, so on and so on.  And that argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates.

Here is what Candidate Obama said of  George Bush’s spending, “irresponsible” and ”unpatriotic.” 

YouTube Preview Image

Irresponsible is spot on.  Unpatriotic is hyperbole but that’s what politicians do.  Bush did add $4T to the debt, but it took him 8 years while Obama added $6.6T in only 3 ($9T to $15.6T).  Irresponsible doesn’t seem to adequately describe the problem here. 

That’s $15.6T in $100 bills.  Thanks to Mortgaged FutureHow Much is a Trillion Dollars? – US Debt Levels Exceed Comprehension.”

The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission that I created — which the Republicans originally were for until I was for it — that was about paying down the deficit.  And I didn’t agree with all the details. 

President Obama was so in favor of Simpson-Bowles that he submitted his own budget.  It was shot down in the House 414-0.  The Simpson-Bowles budget was then submitted for vote and went down 382-38.  While Obama couldn’t get a single vote for his own budget a whopping 22 Democrats did support Simpson-Bowles, a budget Obama supported only very weakly and late in the game.

This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether.  It is a Trojan Horse.  Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. 

Radical is $6.6T in debt in 3 years.  President Obama had overwhelming majorities in his first 2 years but he hasn’t managed to get a budget passed since 2009.  His own budget was rejected by every Democrat in the House.  He cannot, with a straight face, blame obstructionist Republicans. 

The fact is, President Obama is spending too much money too fast and it has to end before our debt becomes a major national security issue, see: Why (knowing) History Matters and Why Our Debt Crisis Matters.

March 31, 2012

The Hunger Games Stinks

The Hunger Games; hated it.  Here’s why, and before anyone reply that I need to read the books; 1) I’m reviewing the movie; I saw Battle Royale twelve years ago.  It was both better and 30 minutes shorter and 2) no I don’t; I read Shirley Jackson‘s The Lottery decades ago and it only took 30 minutes to read.  Other reasons to follow.

First, the idea of 142 of film dedicated to entertaining me by showing me the story of children killing children for the amusement of a television audience is morally bankrupt from the word go.  If the film wished to develop a theme exploring the decayed moral fiber of a society that would do such a thing perhaps they could have spent less than 3/4 of the film on killing.

 

Second, the plot required me to work too hard to suspend my disbelief.  I am to believe that a shy girl from the sticks brought to the capital to battle to the death with 23 other children and she’s got the wherewithal to turn on a level of media charm and Machiavellian savvy that woos a society so decadent that they get off watching these children kill each other…. live…. on rebroadcast closed- circuit TV?  Get real!  She would have been awestruck by the disgusting disparity between the poverty of her home territory, an awful knock-off of Butcher Hollow from Coal Miner’s Daughter, and the excesses of the capital all while in the midst of profound terror knowing she was soon to be killed by kids from other territories who’ve been raised since birth, one presumes all Spartan like, to win the games. 

Third, the film was so derivative that it looked like a jig-saw puzzle.  No it didn’t.  It looked like some kid taped a sequence of unrelated pictures together; poorly, with scotch tape. 

The film didn’t have the guts to be an acknowledged tribute but instead shyly ripped off other people’s work.  It is a bad, if I need to include that word, mash-up.  It suffered from this in both plot and imagery.   The plot: The Lottery meets Brave New World meets Battle Royale meets Logan’s Run meets Romeo and Juliet though with elements lifted in caricatured form.  The imagery: Coal Minder’s Daughter, Branagh‘s Hamlet, Julie Taymor‘s Titus and a bit from the spate of recent fantasy films including Narnia and the Lord of the Rings though like sun beaten bleached playground equipment.

Fourth, the characters were so poorly developed that after nearly 2.5 hours I only remember two of their names.  Of the two, Haymitch – a former Hunger Games champion and mentor to the main character Katniss Everdeen, played by Woody Harrelson was entirely likable and I wish the film would have explored how his victory created the man we see on screen.

 

The male lead, he’s a super strong guy but smaller than Katniss?  Really?  Woody, well, he was awesome but that’s it for casting success.  OK, the MC, Caesar Flickerman played by Stanley Tucci, was well done though not as deliciously over the top as Chris Tucker in The 5th Element but that’s a high standard to meet.

The movie was just god awful garbage.  The only redeeming feature was the fact that I at least got a few hours with my wonderful wife.

March 10, 2012

Kiribati Moving?

Filed under: AGW,Anthropogenic Global Warming,Environment,Global Warming,Kiribati — Obtuse Observer @ 3:27 am

Headline: As sea levels rise, Kiribati eyes 6,000 acres in Fiji as new home for 103,000 islanders.  Article.

From the article:

Tong said some villages have already moved and there have been increasing instances of sea water contaminating the island’s underground fresh water, which remains vital for trees and crops. He said changing rainfall, tidal and storm patterns pose as least as much threat as ocean levels, which so far have risen only slightly.

Some scientists have estimated the current level of sea rise in the Pacific at about 2 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year. Many scientists expect that rate to accelerate due to climate change.

I have two points to make.

1)  The rate of sea level rise is so slow that it would take over a decade to rise an inch leaving the islanders a good deal of time to make their decision.

2)  The population of Kiribati has more than doubled in the past 50 years.  Modern water consuming devices such as plumbing, dish washers, refrigeration, air conditioning have become more common.  Tourism has increased as well.  These factors result in a dramatic increase in fresh water consumption.  That dramatic increase depletes fresh water aquifers.  When the aquifer falls below point X salt water intrudes.  The rate at which the fresh water is consumed as well as the rate of increase in consumption exceeds the rate of sea level rise.   What does this mean?  Kiribati’s fresh water is at risk from over consumption not from the sea level rising.

The moral of the story: Islands have limited resources, that’s why island dwarfism occurs.  When the resources of an island get stressed bad things happen.  In the present case resorting to fears of the consequences of global warming are silly at best.  What is perhaps most troubling is the lost of an opportunity to note the real problem… poor management of the immediate environment can push it beyond the brink. 

 

March 6, 2012

After Birth Abortion?

Filed under: Abortion,After Birth Abortion,Right to Life — Obtuse Observer @ 10:19 am

You just can’t make this stuff up.  Some of the best and brightest have recently been published in the Journal of Medical Ethics asserting  that recently born babies may be “aborted” after being born with no whiff of moral impropriety.  The short version of the argument is that because newborns are not “actual persons” they have “no moral right to life”.  I’m sure they have a very intelligent, cogent and otherwise brilliant proposal.  It must be.  How could anything so completely stupid be offered up to sane people as reasonable if it isn’t brilliant?

From the article After-birth abortion; why should the baby live?:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

That such a notion should be regarded as worthy of publishing is frightening.  When we disregard as newborn as “morally irrelevant” we’ve stepped into an inhuman, immoral twilight-zone.

Obama’s Birth Control Mandate

President Obama recently mandated that all employers provide coverage of contraceptives, including abortifacients and sterilization.  This requirement provides no exception for religious institutions which oppose their use.

A mandate is a requirement; a command.  It eliminates choice.  When we abandon respect for the dissenting views of others, especially those with explicit constitutional protection, and require that those dissenting institutions fund a violation of their own religious principles we enter into entirely new territory.

Setting aside the autocratic nature of such mandates, requiring the Catholic Church to pay for these services is as blatant an assault in religious liberty as has happened in my lifetime.  Archbishop of New York; Cardinal Dolan has spoken out against such federally commanded violations of their religious principles.

I have included Cardinal Dolan’s letter to his brother bishops.  I’m confident our MSM has been more diligent in making sure we are all aware that Rush Limbaugh called an advocate for President Obama’s policy a slut than reporting the Cardinal’s letter.

 

Office of the President

3211 FOURTH STREET NE   

WASHINGTON DC 20017-1194 

202-541-3100

FAX 202-541-3166

 

Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan

Archbishop of New York

President

March 2, 2012

My brother bishops,

Twice in recent weeks, I have written you to express my gratitude for our unity in faith

and action as we move forward to protect our religious freedom from unprecedented intrusion

from a government bureau, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). I remain

deeply grateful to you for your determined resolve, to the Chairmen of our committees directly

engaged in these efforts – Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Bishop Stephen

Blaire and Bishop William Lori -who have again shown themselves to be such excellent leaders

during these past weeks, and to all our staff at the USCCB who work so diligently under the

direction of the Conference leadership.

 

How fortunate that we as a body have had opportunities during our past plenary

assemblies to manifest our strong unity in defense of religious freedom. We rely on that unity

now more than ever as HHS seeks to define what constitutes church ministry and how it can be

exercised. We will once again dedicate ample time at our Administrative Committee meeting

next week, and at the June Plenary Assembly, to this critical subject. We will continue to listen,

discuss, deliberate and act.

 

Thank you, brothers, for the opportunity to provide this update to you and the dioceses

you serve. Many of you have expressed your thanks for what we have achieved together in so

few weeks, especially the data provided and the leadership given by brother bishops, our

conference staff and Catholic faithful. And you now ask the obvious question, “What’s next?”

Please allow me to share with you now some thoughts about events and efforts to date and where

we might go next.

 

Since January 20, when the final, restrictive HHS Rule was first announced, we have

become certain of two things: religious freedom is under attack, and we will not cease our

struggle to protect it. We recall the words of our Holy Father Benedict XVI to our brother

bishops on their recent ad limina visit: “Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to

limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.” Bishop Stephen Blaire

and Bishop William Lori, with so many others, have admirably kept us focused on this one

priority of protecting religious freedom. We have made it clear in no uncertain terms to the

government that we are not at peace with its invasive attempt to curtail the religious freedom we

cherish as Catholics and Americans. We did not ask for this fight, but we will not run from it.

 

As pastors and shepherds, each of us would prefer to spend our energy engaged in and

promoting the works of mercy to which the Church is dedicated: healing the sick, teaching our

youth, and helping the poor. Yet, precisely because we are pastors and shepherds, we recognize

that each of the ministries entrusted to us by Jesus is now in jeopardy due to this bureaucratic

intrusion into the internal life of the church. You and I both know well that we were doing those

extensive and noble works rather well without these radical new constrictive and forbidding

mandates. Our Church has a long tradition of effective partnership with government and the

wider community in the service of the sick, our children, our elders, and the poor at home and

abroad, and we sure hope to continue it.

 

Of course, we maintained from the start that this is not a “Catholic” fight alone. I like to

quote as often as possible a nurse who emailed me, “I’m not so much mad about all this as a

Catholic, but as an American.” And as we recall, a Baptist minister, Governor Mike Huckabee,

observed, “In this matter, we’re all Catholics.” No doubt you have heard numerous statements

just like these. We are grateful to know so many of our fellow Americans, especially our friends

in the ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, stand together in this important moment in our

country. They know that this is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical

contraception. It’s about religious freedom, the sacred right of any Church to define its own

teaching and ministry.

 

When the President announced on January 20th that the choking mandates from HHS

would remain, not only we bishops and our Catholic faithful, but people of every faith, or none at

all, rallied in protest. The worry that we had expressed — that such government control was

contrary to our deepest political values — was eloquently articulated by constitutional scholars

and leaders of every creed.

 

On February 10th, the President announced that the insurance providers would have to

pay the bill, instead of the Church’s schools, hospitals, clinics, or vast network of charitable

outreach having to do so. He considered this “concession” adequate. Did this help? We

wondered if it would, and you will recall that the Conference announced at first that, while

withholding final judgment, we would certainly give the President’s proposal close scrutiny.

Well, we did — and as you know, we are as worried as ever.

 

For one, there was not even a nod to the deeper concerns about trespassing upon religious

freedom, or of modifying the HHS’ attempt to define the how and who of our ministry. Two,

since a big part of our ministries are “self-insured,” we still ask how this protects us. We’ll still

have to pay and, in addition to that, we’ll still have to maintain in our policies practices which

our Church has consistently taught are grave wrongs in which we cannot participate. And what

about forcing individual believers to pay for what violates their religious freedom and

conscience? We can’t abandon the hard working person of faith who has a right to religious

freedom. And three, there was still no resolution about the handcuffs placed upon renowned

Catholic charitable agencies, both national and international, and their exclusion from contracts

just because they will not refer victims of human trafficking, immigrants and refugees, and the

hungry of the world, for abortions, sterilization, or contraception. In many ways, the

announcement of February 10 solved little and complicated a lot. We now have more questions

than answers, more confusion than clarity.

 

So the important question arises: What to do now? How can we bishops best respond,

especially united in our common pastoral ministry as an Episcopal Conference? For one, under

the ongoing leadership of Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Bishop Blaire and

Bishop Lori we will continue our strong efforts of advocacy and education. In the coming

weeks the Conference will continue to provide you, among other things, with catechetical

resources on the significance of religious freedom to the Church and the Church’s teaching on it

from a doctrinal and moral perspective. We are developing liturgical aids to encourage prayer in

our efforts and plans on how we can continue to voice our public and strong opposition to this

infringement on our freedom. And the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, that has served

the Conference so well in its short lifespan, will continue its extraordinary work in service to this

important cause.

 

Two, we will ardently continue to seek a rescinding of the suffocating mandates that

require us to violate our moral convictions, or at least insist upon a much wider latitude to the

exemptions so that churches can be free of the new, rigidly narrow definition of church, minister

and ministry that would prevent us from helping those in need, educating children and healing

the sick, no matter their religion.

 

In this regard, the President invited us to “work out the wrinkles.” We have accepted that

invitation. Unfortunately, this seems to be stalled: the White House Press Secretary, for instance,

informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him,

commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is

scurrilous and insulting, not to mention flat out wrong. Bishop Blaire did a fine job of setting the

record straight.) The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now

published in the Federal Registry “without change.” The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as

saying, “Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their

own religious tenets.” That doesn’t bode well for their getting a truly acceptable

“accommodation.”

 

At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff,

our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is,

revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the

table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they

advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of

accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in

America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand

Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has

nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.

 

We will continue to accept invitations to meet with and to voice our concerns to anyone

of any party, for this is hardly partisan, who is willing to correct the infringements on religious

freedom that we are now under. But as we do so, we cannot rely on off the record promises of

fixes without deadlines and without assurances of proposals that will concretely address the

concerns in a manner that does not conflict with our principles and teaching.

 

Congress might provide more hope, since thoughtful elected officials have proposed

legislation to protect what should be so obvious: religious freedom. Meanwhile, in our recent

debate in the senate, our opponents sought to obscure what is really a religious freedom issue by

maintaining that abortion inducing drugs and the like are a “woman’s health issue.” We will not

let this deception stand. Our commitment to seeking legislative remedies remains strong. And it

is about remedies to the assault on religious freedom. Period. (By the way, the Church hardly

needs to be lectured about health care for women. Thanks mostly to our Sisters, the Church is

the largest private provider of health care for women and their babies in the country.) Bishop

William Lori, Chairman of our Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, stated it well in a recent

press release: “We will build on this base of support as we pursue legislation in the House of

Representatives, urge the Administration to change its course on this issue, and explore our legal

rights under the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

 

Perhaps the courts offer the most light. In the recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, the Supreme

Court unanimously defended the right of a Church to define its own ministry and services, a

dramatic rebuff to the administration, apparently unheeded by the White House. Thus, our

bishops’ conference, many individual religious entities, and other people of good will are

working with some top-notch law firms who feel so strongly about this that they will represent us

pro-bono. In the upcoming days, you will hear much more about this encouraging and welcome

development.

 

Given this climate, we have to prepare for tough times. Some, like America magazine,

want us to cave-in and stop fighting, saying this is simply a policy issue; some want us to close

everything down rather than comply (In an excellent article, Cardinal Francis George wrote that

the administration apparently wants us to “give up for Lent” our schools, hospitals, and

charitable ministries); some, like Bishop Robert Lynch wisely noted, wonder whether we might

have to engage in civil disobedience and risk steep fines; some worry that we’ll have to face a

decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer

offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.

 

Brothers, we know so very well that religious freedom is our heritage, our legacy and our

firm belief, both as loyal Catholics and Americans. There have been many threats to religious

freedom over the decades and years, but these often came from without. This one sadly comes

from within. As our ancestors did with previous threats, we will tirelessly defend the timeless

and enduring truth of religious freedom.

 

I look forward to our upcoming Administrative Board Meeting and our June Plenary

Assembly when we will have the chance to discuss together these important issues and our way

forward in addressing them. And I renew my thanks to you for your tremendous, fraternal

support and your welcome observations in this critical effort to protect our religious freedom.

 

With prayerful best wishes, I am

Fraternally in Christ,

Timothy Cardinal Dolan

Archbishop of New York

President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

February 22, 2012

Secret War: Bringing Down Iran’s Nuclear Program

Filed under: Iran — Tags: , — Obtuse Observer @ 1:47 pm

Scientists associated with Iran’s nuclear program are being killed at a good clip.  Most suspect that Israel is behind their deaths.  While publicly such acts are denied it does seem to be with not only a wink but with the tacit approval, if not covert assistance, of other states in the region. 

 

Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan:  Mostafa Roshan was a supervisor at a department at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan Province.  He was killed after a motorcyclist attached a magnetic bomb to his car on 1/11/12.

 

Majid Shahriari:  Identified by Time Magazine as Iran’s top nuclear scientist, he was killed on 11/29/10 in an attack utilizing a magnetic bomb attached to his car and detonated remotely.

 

Fereydoon Abbasi: Another top level nuclear scientist.  He survived an assassination attempt on the same day that Shahriari was killed.  Currently heads Atomic Energy Oganization of Iran.

 

Masoud Ali Mohammadi: Quantum field theorist and elementary-particle physicist was killed on 1/12/10.

 

Darioush Rezaeinejed: Nuclear scientist killed 7/23/11.

 

Ardeshir Hosseinpour: Nuclear scientist specializing in electromagnetism died under uncertain circumstances on 1/15/07.

 

General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam: On 11/12/11 seventeen members of the Revolutionary Guard, including Moghaddam, were killed in an explosion at Moddares missile depot that also destroyed 180 Shahab 3 missiles.

 

The methods may make us deeply troubled.  A nuclear Iran should make us more-so.

 

February 14, 2012

Taxes and Fair Share

Filed under: 2012 Budget,Fair Share,Taxation — Tags: , — Obtuse Observer @ 2:24 am

President Obama tells us everyone must pay their fair share.  I think he’s exactly right.  But I don’t think he means what he is saying*.  Everybody would include more than the roughly 53% of Americans who actually pay federal income taxes.  The President wants to make federal taxes more fair by eliminating deductions utilized by “the rich.”  He has never defined the term rich.  Although he often refers to millionaires, proposed tax changes have applied to those earning at most 25% of what millionaires earn.  To President Obama “fair share” means taxing a smaller group of tax payers from the shrinking pool of those who actually pay federal income taxes.  Increasing demands on fewer and fewer people does not conjure the word “fair” immediately to the mind of most sane people.

What would be fair? 

1)  Take the entire Internal Revenue Code and burn it.

2)  If you have income you pay income tax; unless you are not part of everyone.  If you are not part of everyone you are no one.

3)  There will be two tax brackets.  15% and 25%

4)  Income brackets will be established by an “over/under” number and the number pegged to the rate of inflation. 

5)  There will be four deductions as follows:

  • Mortgage Interest: federal income tax policy should encourage home ownership.
  • Child Credit: federal income tax policy should encourage and support families.
  • State Income Taxes (or high state sales taxes where no income tax): federal income tax policy should not take a second bite from the apple.
  • Charitable Giving: federal income tax policy should encourage charitable giving.  Not only is it right and proper but helps relieve the burden on tax payer funded programs.

The problem with a simplified tax structure like this is that it eliminates thousands of pages of code and the need for hundreds of thousands of experts to interpret it, it eliminates the opportunities for politicians of every political stripe to embed arcane deductions aimed at preferred constituencies and it would eliminate the need for probably 99% of the IRS.  Sadly, while President Obama does not mean what he says, enough Congressmen agree with him to make it not matter.   And so, we will continue to hear a lot about this issue that says nothing, at best, and misleads more commonly.

 

*Just for clarity, because Obama is President and not Governor, Mayor etc, I presume he is talking about taxes within the control of the federal government; that is to say federal income taxes and so my comments address federal income taxes.  It is awful that I need to say that but with people like Warren Buffet intentionally confusing the issue it becomes necessary.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress

3 visitors online now
0 guests, 3 bots, 0 members
Max visitors today: 15 at 07:35 am UTC
This month: 20 at 05-01-2012 10:28 pm UTC
This year: 145 at 04-02-2012 04:43 pm UTC
All time: 145 at 04-02-2012 04:43 pm UTC