Tone-Deaf in Washington

            Is Washington completely tone-deaf?

            The country is broke, but Washington continues to spend more money than it takes in. The CBO estimates that our debt, which now equals 40% of GDP, will eclipse our entire economy in less than ten years. That means we will soon be bankrupt if we don't change our ways. Yet, here were recent headlines in our media:

            "Leading House Democrats Say Social Security Cuts Are a Non-Starter." And any suggestions to the contrary, I suppose, mean that Republicans want to shove grandma over the cliff.

            "Dems Call for Stimulus in Debt Deal." You gotta be kidding. After wasting close to a trillion dollars in Obama's first stimulus, Democrats want to spend more on programs like Cash for Clunkers? And that's even after Obama admitted, jokingly, that there had been fewer shovel-ready programs than he thought.

            "Lawmakers Grumble over Secret Biden Talks." Have we forgotten the backroom deal that shoved Obamacare down our throats? Already we hear that there won't be enough time to analyze the "Biden deal" before voting on raising the debt ceiling.

            "Families with Income up to $63,000 Eligible for Medicaid." Speaker Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it. Well, now we're finding out.

            "The Tide of War Is Receding." The President is withdrawing 10,000 troops from Afghanistan this summer and another 30,000 next September when fighting is at its peak, but just in time to influence elections. The decision pleases nobody, not those who want us out of Afghanistan now, not the ones who want to stay as long as it takes to win, and certainly not the generals who have advised otherwise. Oh, but the Taliban is pleased, of course, to know what our plans are. Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan is costing us $6.7 billion a month.

            "Jacob Zuma Snubs Michelle Obama." The First Lady is drawing raves from the mainstream media for her goodwill visit to Africa. But the President of South Africa had it right. He saw her trip for what it really was: another vacation (remember Mexico and Spain). Let's tell it like it is. The highlight of Michelle Obama's trip wasn't a meeting with Nelson Mandela, but a private safari in Botswana. Why else would she take along her daughters, her mother, and her nephew and niece, not to mention an entourage of aides and fawning media? And at what cost to the American taxpayer?

            Haven't we had enough of tone-deaf lawmakers in Congress and royal pretenders in the White House?

           

Lessons from Austria

            Travel abroad can be a great educational experience, especially when it opens our eyes to other cultures. On a recent trip that included a few days in Austria, I came away with some lasting impressions.

            I was struck by the apparent affluence of the population, no doubt fueled by an unemployment rate of 4.5%. Everybody who wants to work has a job. Austria has done some good things for its economy, like joining the European Union, which gave it free access to European markets, and privatizing industry, which has made the country more competitive.

            Austria's affluence shows. Vienna, the capital and largest city, is booming. Since 1990, when I last visited it, the city has added a ring of modern industrial complexes. But it is still the center of the city that reflects its vitality. Tourism represents 10% of Austria's economy, and Vienna has a major share of it, because it has so much to offer its visitors. Hotels, restaurants, hundreds of cafes offering a unique variety of coffees and pastries, museums, concert halls, parks, palaces, churches, and architectural wonders, all contribute to the city's appeal.

            Little things, too. Like a clean, modern subway system with electronic boards that show arrival times and intervals. Like clean streets that are closed to vehicular traffic after 10:30 in the morning. Like public toilets that are clean and free of loiterers (because you must pay a small fee to use them). Like bicycle lanes for a slim and trim population that frowns on indolence. I did see a few tattoos and some nose studs, but no sagging pants or knee-length T-shirts. I heard church bells and strains of Mozart and Strauss, but not a single vibrating boom box.

            Still, there are some disturbing signs: an aging population with a negative growth rate largely supplemented by Muslim immigration; labor unions that are dedicated to perpetuating unproductive work rules; a government addicted to socialist welfare policies; and an increasingly secular population that has seen a drop in churchgoers from 90% to under 40% in fifty years. I have to wonder if these are the seeds of self-destruction.

            On Austria's superb no-speed-limit highways, you can see one brand new car after another whizzing by at speeds up to and over 100 miles per hour. I wonder if this is not the perfect metaphor for a country enjoying the best of everything while waiting for a fatal crash to happen.

            We could learn something from that.

Friend or Foe

            "Let me be clear." This is how President Obama prefaces his remarks when he wants to make sure we don't misunderstand what he is about to say. Well, remarks he uttered in several speeches during the week of May 16th make it clear where he stands on Israel.

            Since the Six-Day War in 1967 between Israel and its neighbors, American policy stated by every president since Lyndon Johnson has been that Israel need not return the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza strip to Arab control or to repatriate Palestinian refugees. President Obama has now reversed that policy.

            To his credit, Prime Minister Netanyahu said to the most powerful man in the world, right to his face and in front of the cameras for all the world to see and hear, "That will not happen." Bravo.

            Oblivious to the crushing deficits he has promoted, President Obama that week also declared that the United States would provide billions in additional aid to the Palestinians and the Arabs of North Africa. These are the same people who cheered in the streets after 9/11, the same people who support Hezbollah, Fatah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in their midst,  organizations that openly advocate the destruction of Israel and America. 

            This was the same week that Obama focused all the attention on himself when speaking about the killing of bin Laden. Yet leaks keep coming out of Washington that make us suspect that Obama withheld approval of the action for weeks for fear of offending his Muslim friends. On the eve of the action, with everything ready and the CIA and the Pentagon pressing him for action, the president still needed to sleep on it. It may very well be that the decision was made for him while he slept. If true, that would have been a gift to the president: had the action failed, he could have blamed his advisors for usurping his authority. When it succeeded, he was able to take credit for the fateful decision, while the others obviously could not.

            Finally, evidence surfaced that week that Iran and Hezbollah helped al Qaeda in planning the attacks on September 11, 2001, and in facilitating the hijackers' training and travel. This is the same Iran that Obama chooses to "engage" rather than confront, the same Iran that crushed a popular rebellion that cried out for support from a silent Obama. It is also the same Iran whose first nuclear plant is expected to be operational in a matter of weeks, bringing it that much closer to having nuclear weapons.

            Israel had stated repeatedly that it cannot permit Iran to have nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to act unilaterally against Iran, will it have the backing of the United States? I don't know. But I am reminded of the old adage that a friend of my friend is my friend, and the friend of my enemy is my enemy. Israel has every right to ask Obama: Whose friend are you?  

           

The Facts about Nuclear Energy

         

            Ever since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, any mention of nuclear plants in this country, whether existing or planned, is met with hysterical rants from anti-nukes and uninformed environmentalists. This calls for a re-examination of the facts.

            To put it simply, of the three major sources of electricity in this country (coal, gas, and nuclear account for 90%), nuclear energy is the cleanest, most cost effective, and  safest source of power we have. Let's take one point at a time.          

            First, I have never understood why environmentalists who rail against emissions of CO2 by coal and gas-fired plants haven't become big supporters of nuclear energy, which emits none. We have 104 operating nuclear plants in this country, and they produce clean, emission-free energy. Period.

            Second, nuclear energy is also cost effective. It takes six to eight billion dollars to build a nuclear plant, but once it is built, it requires only basic maintenance; we have plants that have been in operation for over forty years and will continue to operate long into the future. The fuel itself, uranium, is plentiful and cheap; moreover, if the Japanese figure out how to extract it from seawater economically (they're working on it), we could have enough uranium to meet our needs for the next thousand years.

            Electricity produced by nuclear plants is probably the cheapest of all. France learned this lesson years ago when it built 59 nuclear plants that provide 80% of its electricity at a cost that is among the lowest in the world. In fact, France produces so much electricity from its nuclear plants, it sells its excess to other countries. We could learn from France's example.

            Third, U.S. nuclear power plants are very safe. Our first nuclear power plant was started in 1958. Since then, the U.S. has built 132. In addition, the Navy has put 140 nuclear-powered ships out to sea. None of these plants or ships, not even Three-Mile Island, has ever caused a single death due to a nuclear accident. Compare that to the record of the coal industry, for instance. Yet, vocal and influential anti-nuke groups have managed to get the number of power plants reduced to 104 and have effectively prevented the building of new ones for decades.

            Another concern brought up by opponents is the problem of storing spent nuclear fuel. This is no problem for the French who recycle spent fuel. But Jimmy Carter thought that stored plutonium waiting to be recycled presented a security risk, so he opted for permanent storage of nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain storage facility became a perfectly adequate solution. But Nevada's Senator Reid didn't want nuclear waste in his back yard so he called in a favor from President Obama, and the president obliged by cancelling Yucca Mountain. So much for playing politics with nuclear fuel. But another solution is available.

            There are enormous salt domes beneath Texas and New Mexico. In fact, one of these domes in Carlsbad, New Mexico, has been used for 12 years as a repository for defense transuranic waste material from our nuclear weapons program. Steel casks containing the waste are buried deep in a salt dome, and the heat from the radioactive waste causes a melting of the salt, a process called plastic deformation. The salt surrounds the casks and seals them. Unfortunately, this solution would make the nuclear waste very expensive and impractical to retrieve, if we ever changed our minds about that. Yucca Mountain, on the other hand, was designed for retrievability for 100 years. So much for the $12 billion of taxpayer money already invested in Yucca Mountain.

          This is just another piece of evidence that our country's energy policy is weak, muddled,  confused, and politicized. It is high time we put a lid on venal politicians and hysterical anti-nukes, and become enthusiastic advocates for clean, efficient, and safe nuclear energy.

             

Oil Policy Madness

            Madness. This is the only word that adequately describes the energy policy of this administration.

            With gas prices at the pump  going up daily, Obama's solution is to investigate oil companies for fraud. Is he really that clueless?

            Fraud is not the problem. It's a question of supply and demand. But President Obama doesn't understand that.

            In 1970 the United States was producing 9.6 million barrels of oil a day and importing 3.16 million barrels. Today it is still producing over 9 million barrels, but importing 11.3 million barrels a day.  

            It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we need to produce more. But our leader said in a recent speech, "Even if we increase domestic oil production, that is not going to be the long-term solution to our energy challenge." No? What is? Windmills and solar shingles? Can he be so totally uninformed? Or has he gone mad?

            President Obama has said that our country has only 21 billion barrels of oil, about 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. He's right. But his numbers don't include technically recoverable off shore reserves, ANWAR, and the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota, all of which total some 134 billion barrels. Plus it doesn't include another 30 billion barrels in the Chukchi Sea off the west coast of Alaska.

            So what has the administration been doing about recovering all that oil? It has maintained a de facto moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico; it has denied oil leases for drilling off the east and west coasts; it has persisted in blocking production in ANWAR. And now comes the best of all.

            In 2008 the United States auctioned off leases to the Chukchi oil fields for $2.6 billion. Shell Oil alone spent another $2 billion during its pre-drill exploratory phase. That was under the Bush administration. But in 2010, with Obama running the country, environmental groups sued and a federal judge agreed to halt exploration pending a more complete environmental statement. Oil companies complied, but now the EPA has blocked the appeal, stating, among other things, that oil companies ignored--GET THIS--the potential effects of carbon dioxide emissions from ice breakers on nearby communities.

            The nearest inhabitants are 70 miles away in the village of Kaktovik, population 245.

             "Know Thine Enemy." We know it very well. It is not the oil companies: It is the EPA, and it is holding our president prisoner in the White House of Madness.

           

What Would I Do?

            I'm no expert, but I know what I'd do.

            I would start with discretionary spending, since the blowhards in Congress have been arguing about it these last few months. I would cut it by 25% right now, and another 25% over the next five years. There have been umpteen proposals for eliminating unnecessary departments and federal programs. It will hurt, but it has to be done.

            I would go after Obama's legion of tsars. I would fire them all and wipe out their departments. Then I would go after the departments of Education, Energy, Interior, the EPA, and Homeland Security. These bloated, ineffective, counter-productive, and largely useless departments present enormous targets for reducing the cost of government.

            Next I'd  go after agriculture subsidies for billionaire farmers and rules that allow the super rich to own vast properties but avoid paying taxes by planting a cabbage patch and claiming they are farmers.

            This is a minor point, but I'd love to ground Air Force One. Harry Truman didn't spend his time flitting about the country making speeches to hand-picked audiences; he spent his time working at his desk. Obama could learn from his example.

            I would reduce our dependency on foreign oil by drilling everywhere oil and gas has been found. Obama's de facto moratorium on drilling offshore and in Alaska is insane. And I would build nuclear energy plants. Lots of them. They're the most efficient, clean, and safe (yes, safe) sources of energy.

            Now on to military spending. I have always been a supporter of national defense. But enough is enough. Our own survival comes first. I would bring our boys home from Iraq and Afghanistan; close most of the overseas bases; forgo any thoughts of playing the role of international policeman and nation builder; reassess the need for so many carrier task forces that are becoming increasingly irrelevant; spend the money on wounded warriors and their families, not on new weapons systems; and bring on BRAC Phase 2.

            Now the big one: entitlements. How did this country survive without Medicare, Medicare, and Social Security? Without reneging on our promises to seniors and without removing the safety net for the poorest among us, there is a lot we can do.

            First, I  would repeal Obamacare. It cannot be allowed to add a trillion dollars a year to our deficit.

            Second, I would revise the eligibility criteria for Medicaid, beginning with anyone above the poverty line. Thirty percent of Americans are on Medicaid, and none of them pay for their health care. That shouldn't be. No one should get totally free medical care; everyone should have to pay something, even if it's a small co-pay.

            Retirees are entitled to Medicare. This should not change. But why not adopt a form of privatization as recommended by Paul Ryan? And why wait until 2022?

            Retirees are also entitled to Social Security. But if someone chooses to retire early, it should be at his or her expense. Some rules should be revised, such as the one that awards social security benefits to the wife and children of early retirees even if they are millionaires who can afford to retire at age 55.

            Speaking of entitlements, illegal aliens should not be entitled to anything. Not free health care, not free education, not free food, not free housing. No free benefits of any kind.

            On the revenue side, I'd scrap the IRS and replace it with a Fair Tax, a consumption tax, or a combination of the two. This will ensure that everyone pays taxes, as opposed to the 45% of Americans who pay no income tax at all, and it will eliminate the onerous and costly income tax system we now have.

            And just to make everything fair, I'd make everyone subject to the same rules, conditions, benefits, and privileges. Members of Congress who pass our laws should be subject to them like the rest of us.

            I could go on, but the bozos in Washington aren't listening.

The Chinese Own Me

            All the talk these days is about the deficit and the debt. It almost sounds at times that the terms are interchangeable. They are not.

            The deficit is an annual thing. It's all about spending more money than we take in. When we overspend, we add to the debt.

            The debt is what this country owes, because we borrowed money to finance deficits. China owns most of our debt, the same China that stocks the shelves at Walmart, because we can't produce the same products at a competitive price. If we don't start to reduce our debt soon, China will end up owning US!

            Let's look at it this way. When we are in a deficit mode like the one we're in now, every time Obama, for example, gives Brazil $2 billion to develop its oil industry, we have to borrow that money from the Chinese. When we give the Libyan rebels $25 million to help them fight Qaddhafi, we have to borrow that money from the Chinese. When we shower Tripoli with half a billion dollars' worth of missiles, we have to borrow money from the Chinese to replace them in our arsenal. Every time we spend money we don't have, we have to borrow it from the Chinese.

            Our debt is nearly $15 trillion, a number that everyone agrees is unsustainable. Yet, Washington is crying that if we don't lift the debt ceiling, our creditworthiness will collapse and we won't be able to borrow more from the Chinese. So what should we do? Raise the debt ceiling, of course.

            Is that nuts, or what?

            The only way for Washington to reduce the debt is to stop spending more than it takes in. But Washington is addicted to spending. Whenever anyone proposes drastic action to balance the budget, the knee-jerk response is to accuse the proposer of kicking grandma out on the street and denying pregnant teenagers their reproductive health rights.

            What should Washington do, that is, if it had any guts?

            First, what it shouldn't do is raise the debt ceiling. Pay the interest first and then figure out how to live off the rest. But the rest isn't enough? It certainly was enough twenty years ago, wasn't it?  So what would I do? I'm no expert, but I know what I'd do.
             See my next blog.