INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT OIL

Before my recent retirement after a career of almost 40 years, I had the unique opportunity to work in the technology areas for a major oil company, an international financial operation, and one of the world’s largest international banks.  As a result, although not an expert in either exploration or production of crude oil and its impact on financial and consumer markets, I did have access to information that most American consumers did not.  This was not secret data, nor was it proprietary information.  It was simply a case of facts the media was not interested in reporting, and our politicians felt were not germane to their own agendas.  Let me start with a few simple facts.

 At the time of the 1972 OPEC oil embargo, the domestic production of crude oil in America peaked at about 10 million barrels per day.  This domestic production accounted for almost 2/3’s of our total needs, resulting in about 1/3 of our needed crude to be imported.  The chilling effect of the embargo on our economy, and ability to provide for the national defense, resulted in our political leadership pledging that the government would work to allow America to achieve energy independence in 10 years.  What have we achieved so far? 

 By 1980, domestic crude production had fallen to 8,572 million barrels per day, while our oil usage climbed to 16,058 million barrels per day.  Imports had risen to 7,486 million barrels per day, or 46% of our needs.  In 2005, our total crude oil requirements were 20,802 million barrels per day, while domestic production had fallen to 7,486 million barrels per day.  The 15,624 million barrels per day necessary to keep America and her economy moving were met by imports, which now account for 75% of our needs.  So much for the pledge to make America independent of unreliable foreign sources.  What went wrong?

Of natural crude, we have large reserves off the coasts of California and Florida.  However, no drilling in these areas has been permitted by law since the late 1960’s.  China, however, by using agreements with Cuba to drill in this area, will begin doing so shortly.

 America also has additional reserves in the Gulf areas, from Florida to Texas.  However, no drilling is permitted in most of these areas.  Mexico, however, has no such restrictions.

In Alaska, both onshore and offshore, we have large areas of proven reserves, which are not allowed to be developed by law.  Canada has no laws prohibiting such development.

 In the mountain Western states, large amounts of oil are available in the shale rock formations.  However, EPA regulations prohibit their development.

 In the far West, vast areas of tar sands remain undeveloped due to environmental restrictions.  As with the geographic areas noted above, most of the land is owned or controlled by the federal government.  Canadian use of tar sands is a major source of their oil exports.

 The conversion of coal to oil, a technology available for over 100 years, remains another untapped resource, due to legislative and environmental restrictions.

 The bottom line is that America could have become energy independent with regard to crude oil by the mid 1980’s.  In the area of electricity, the addition of more coal fired generating plants, nuclear power plants, and additional hydro electric plants could have made the need for gas and oil fueled electrical plants unnecessary by 1990.  That would have freed up more crude for other purposes, and reduced our overall consumption of oil.  In addition, our electrical generation capacity would substantially exceed our present needs, rather than the sporadic shortages we now experience.

 Some analysts have estimated that if all of these options had been initiated in the immediate aftermath of the OPEC embargo, crude oil today would have a domestic price of 40-45 dollars per barrel, with secure supplies, and uninfluenced by foreign costs or international speculators.  Why didn’t this happen?

 It is popular to blame the oil companies, oil cartels, or greedy speculators.  But in truth, we are in a bed of our own making.  It is not the usual suspects who have passed laws based on bad science, radical environmental lobbies, self interest, political agendas or ignorance of technological advances and free enterprise economics.  It is the result of our own government, mainly through the ineptness of Congress.  At the risk of sounding glib, the following old saw comes to mind.  If the opposite of Pro is Con, what is the opposite of Progress?

 One need only look at the energy bill recently passed to confirm my opinion.  While this 86.3 billion dollar legislation (including 3.8 billion in pork that has nothing to do with energy) does tell the auto makers how to build cars, tell us that we can’t buy incandescent light bulbs after 2012, and demand that we continue to use 1.25 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol (subsidized by us of course); it does not result in one new gallon of gasoline, or one watt of new electricity.

 So who is to blame for the “new” energy crisis we face?  Look no further than Washington DC.  For 34 years, through Republican and Democratic controlled Congresses and Presidencies, they have done all that they can to create what we, the consumer, must now face.  And I see no hope that they will do anything to correct the situation they have created.  The resources are there, the technologies are proven, and the self corrective economic system is in place.  We need only a government that is both accountable and responsive.

HEROES WALK AMONG US

 To see him in a normal social setting, the casual observer would note only the college student, dressed in a plaid flannel shirt and blue jeans.  Of average height, you might notice that he had an above average muscular build, but nothing to make him stand out in a crowd.  The very slight limp, as he crossed the room, would be hard for most people to detect.

 The other young man is certainly notable for his height.  Standing almost 6’5”, with the build of an athlete, he does stand out.  But his youthful face and business casual attire would peg him as a young man just entering the business world. 

 These two young men, both well known to me, have several things in common.  Both are Eagle Scouts from my very small central Iowa BSA district.  Both are the same age as my youngest son, and served with him as summer camp counselors at our local Scout reservation.  One is currently a college student, while the other graduated with my son from Iowa State.  They have one more thing in common.  Both are decorated combat veterans, and survivors of wounds received in Iraq.

 The college student is Sgt Mike F.  Mike joined the Army after attending our local Junior College.  He was sent to Iraq with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle Unit.  His leadership earned him an early trip back to the US, not to be excused from serving in combat, but to train with the first Stryker Brigade before they were deployed to Iraq.  While in Iraq for the second time, he led a squad into a building to clear it of terrorists.  Entering one room, he was bayoneted from behind by a terrorist hiding in a closet.  After disposing of his attacker, Sgt. Mike returned to his Stryker, and put his Scout experience to work.  He grabbed a roll of duck tape, wound it around his bleeding leg, and rejoined his squad. He was not seen by any medical personnel until his entire unit returned to their forward operating base.  He was stitched up and kept overnight for observation, returning to his unit the next day.  He completed his entire 15 month tour without any further interruption.  He told me the limp can be fixed with some tendon repair, but that can wait until he finishes his graduate degree.

 The tall young man joined the Army ROTC while in college.  After graduation, he went through his initial training, and was accepted into Army Ranger training.  Second Lieutenant Mike S. was sent to Iraq with his Rangers, and saw his first combat two days after arrival.  In the first month, he learned about one disadvantage to his height.  He was struck in the head by a snipers bullet.  It pierced his helmet, and he describes how “it kind of rattled around doing some minor damage to my forehead, ear and hairline.”  Several months later, while on patrol, he was hit by a rocket propelled grenade.  The warhead missed him, and so did not detonate.  However, the fin left a deep gash in his thigh.  He finished his patrol before seeking medical care and multiple stitches.  Asked how he completed his mission with the pain from his leg, Lt. Mike said he didn’t really notice the pain.  He was too busy looking for the second RPG that usually followed an initial attack.  While Mike survived both wounds, neither the sniper nor the RPG shooter did. He has a month off, before returning to duty.  He was offered a position with Army intelligence, but instead applied for Special Forces training.  He is excited that he was accepted for this assignment.

 So, two young Iowa sons, exceptional not in appearance, nor notable for athletic competition, or business success.  Average in most respects, they would not be noticeable while in a mall, at church, or having a cold tall one with friends.  They are among the thousands of quiet heroes that walk among us every day.  Yet most of us do not know them, nor do we thank them.  Two young men who do the things that most of us can’t do, or won’t do.  Yet, everything we are able to do so freely are the result of the quiet courage of men and women like them.    

 I look at these young men , and the twenty-two other former Scouts and adult leaders (my Air Force son among them) serving in the military from my small District here in flyover country, and I am in awe of the character they show every day.  We are indeed blessed that we have heroes that walk among us.  Unknown, unrecognized, but there when we need them the most.

TAXES AND CANDIDATES AND LIES OH MY

 Call me cynical if you will, although I prefer being tagged as a skeptic if I am categorized by my view of political pronouncements.  Frankly, I follow my father’s advice, when he told me to believe nothing that I read or hear, and only half of what I see.  If I cannot prove a statement by any politician to my satisfaction, I consider it a misrepresentation at a minimum, or an outright falsehood at the worst.  And when it comes to politics, there are more falsehoods than exaggerations.

 One of the most repeated claims today by many in politics is that the tax cuts initiated by President Bush benefited the wealthy and major corporations, with little or no benefit to the middle class and lower income people.  These tax cuts are due to expire in 2010, and the only constant I am hearing from the Democratic candidates is that they all intend to allow these cuts to expire.  The current leadership of both the House and Senate, now controlled by Democrats, agree with the candidates and want these “unfair” cuts to expire.

 I am not stuck on stupid, so I understand that if you give the same break to the middle class that you give to the upper income population, the wealthy will keep more money than me, as they have more to begin with.  Cut the taxes on my middle class income at the same rate as someone in a much larger income bracket, and they will get greater benefit in actual dollars saved.  However, my skepticism comes into play when politicians say that the middle class was not treated equally with upper income taxpayers by these tax changes.  It took me ten minutes to establish the facts to my satisfaction, and I challenge others to follow my example, and see for yourself what happened when the tax rates were adjusted under the Bush tax changes.

 Step 1 – Pull out a copy of your Federal tax return for 2002, the last year before the changes to the tax rates took effect.  Write down just two figures; your taxable income and the amount of tax you paid.

 Step 2 – Divide the amount of Federal tax paid by your taxable income.  This will give you the actual percentage rate of taxes you paid in 2002.

 Step 3 – Pull out a copy of your Federal tax return for 2006, the most recent year where the revised tax rates have been in effect.  Again, write down just two figures; your taxable income and the amount of tax you paid.

 Step 4 – Divide the amount of Federal tax paid by your taxable income.  This will give you the actual percentage rate of taxes you paid in 2006.

 Step 5 - Subtract the 2006 tax rate from the 2002 tax rate.  Did the rate go up or down? 

 Please let me share the actual results of this exercise when my wife and I did this.  In the interest of full disclosure, we used our 2005 Federal return, as that was the last full year I worked before retiring halfway through 2006.

 In 2002, on a decidedly middle class income, we paid a Federal rate of 17.9 percent.  In 2005, we paid Federal taxes of 13.6 percent.  Our tax rate had dropped 4.3 percent.  In other words, our Federal tax burden was reduced by a substantial 24 percent.  Actual income was not a factor, as our taxable income had only gone up 1.6 percent from 2002 to 2005.  There also was no change in dependants (our five children are all adults), nor any significant change in any other deductions or credits as evidenced by the very small increase in our taxable income.  During that three year period, my income remained flat, and my wife received only a modest raise.

 The bottom line is that the tax cuts had a sizable impact on the Federal taxes we paid, and that impact was beneficial.  Should we elect a presidential candidate committed to allowing these cuts to expire, with a sympathetic congress that also believes these favorable cuts should go away, I have no doubt that my wife and I will pay more in 2010 than 2009, even if there are no new taxes or raises in existing taxes, simply because we would go back to the 2002 rates.  Before you nod in agreement when you hear the candidates talk about unfair tax cuts, please take this simple five step test yourself, and then decide if what you are being told is true or not.

 When considering how my wife and I will vote in 2008, one factor that will come into play is simply this.  If we have a Democratic President, and a Democratic congress, they have already told me that my taxes will go up 24 percent.  This may be one time when candidates are telling us the truth.                                    

 

 

SELECTING A CANDIDATE

 A good friend of mine, Anne Lieberman, wrote an interesting piece at her blog on the differences between the Republican and Democratic candidates for their respective party nominations for President.  You can read it here.  http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2008/01/democrats-are-m.html

 It got me thinking about the method my wife and I use to select candidates that we will support, in both local and national elections.  We do try to achieve agreement, so that our votes don’t offset each other, and usually wind up with the same candidate.  I thought I would share this method of selection, in hopes that it would assist some of the undecided voters facing the very serious task of exercising the most important right we have, that of selecting the people who will represent us, and make decisions affecting our lives, our city, our state and our nation.

 In the interest of full disclosure, we are both registered as Republicans, but never vote strictly on party affiliation.  Rather, we make every attempt to be objective, and base our preference on actual positions.  Before retirement, my years as a financial analyst and system administrator have had a profound impact on the way I make decisions of importance.  Therefore, this method may prove useful to any reader, regardless of political persuasion.

 We each make a list of the ten issues that are most important to us, and can actually be affected by the candidate for whatever elective office we are rating.  We rank these ten issues with a weighted score of 1 to 10.  The most important issue has a point value of 10; the least important has a point value of 1.  A perfect score on all issues would result in a score of 55 points from each of us.  I would mention at this point that no candidate for any office we have rated ever achieved an individual score of 55, let alone a combined score of 110.  Using all informational assets available, we research each candidate’s position on these issues.  Since we are both Chicago born skeptics, we not only look at statements, speeches and position papers from the current campaign, but also view their past positions and voting records, to determine their commitment to their present positions.

 After we have each worked separately, and scored the candidates appropriately, we combine our scores for each candidate.  If there is any significant disparity in our selection, we discuss where the divergence lies, and work to resolve the differences.  Usually, we are able to agree on a single candidate, and vote accordingly.

 We do have several simple rules to our methodology.  One is that we will not vote for any candidate who scores less than 56, out of a total of 110 possible combined points.  This rarely happens, but is not unheard of.  In the 1996 presidential election scoring, Bob Dole scored 48 on our combined ratings, and Bill Clinton scored 45.  After discussion, we agreed on a write in candidate, and voted neither Republican nor Democratic in that election.  On each issue, there are only two possible point values.  For example, if the issue is illegal immigration, and it is rated as the third most important to us, the candidate can either get an 8 or a 0 from each of us.  In other words, we either agree with the candidate’s position, or we don’t.  There is no equivocation or ‘spinning’ in our system.  We leave that to the politicians.

 I don’t make the claim that this is a perfect system, but it does work for us.  It provides us with at least a semblance of objectivity rather than partisanship, and induces us to research candidates on their records and positions, rather than rhetoric and personality.  The most important aspect, at least to my bride and I, is that we can and do discuss politics with each other without rancor or argument.  That two contentious Chicagoans remain married after 42 years shows that logic based decisions, rather than emotionally based perceptions are better, even if less than perfect.

 

 

We are already celebrating Chanukah, and Christmas is fast approaching.  I think it is appropriate that we be reminded of why we are free to celebrate this Holy Season, and who it is that stands between us and those who seek to destroy these freedoms. 

 I have posted this poem before, after first hearing it read on a radio show several years ago.  I have tried to get substantive evidence as to the confirmed author, but have only managed to get a long list of claims and attributions.  I will simply post this, and again give my thanks to “Anonymous”, a person who truly understands the foundations of our Nation.

 Dedicated with love to my son, half a world away again this Christmas, and my nephew, recently returned from harms way; and all of my friends with family defending us. 

3 BLIND MICE AT ANNAPOLIS

 I have watched with interest the preparations for and beginning negotiations of the Mid-East ‘peace’ conference being held at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis Maryland.  I have been fortunate to count among my friends several graduates of the Naval Academy, and know two young men who currently attend this fine institution.  I greatly fear that this storied place may become synonymous with images of failure, meaningless pronouncements and the possible sellout and subsequent destruction of a democratic ally of America.

 I am no foreign policy wonk, nor do I have any particular expertise as a professional pundit or expert observer.  On the contrary, I have a healthy distrust of anyone advertised as an ‘expert’.  My Grandfather often reminded to beware of those who call themselves experts.  The Titanic, he would say, was built by experts with extensive schooling; while the Ark was built by amateurs with common sense.  Using his reasoning, I can only equate this conference as the bound being led by the blind.

 When I say the bound, I am referring to the multitude of attending countries that have a firm anti-Israel position, based on culture, religion and prejudice.  Indeed, many of them have codified this attitude within their laws, firmly cementing a predicable bias in anything they say or do.  I am going to ignore those countries in this piece, as I think anything further I would say or write would be superfluous to the main issues.

 What is germane to the conference is the participation of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, and United States President George Bush.  Or, as I cited in the title, the three blind mice.  And why, you may ask, do I feel this analogy is appropriate?  My simplistic view, as a certified resident of flyover country, is based on my application of common sense, as taught to me by my grandfather.  As a casual observer, I can only base my opinions on the positions taken by these men, and the position of the two countries that are the actual prime movers of the current situation in that troubled area of the world.

 Prime Minister Olmert has the lowest opinion level by his own countrymen of any Israeli leader in recent memory.  His withdrawal from Gaza has established a terrorist enabling autonomous region that launches almost daily attacks against Israel, and is governed by Hamas, an organization whose very charter demands the destruction of Israel and elimination of all Jews from the area.  He has not learned yet that the Palestinians do not want a separate state.  Rather, they want it all, with no compromise, and no Israel.  Yet he continues to offer the Palestinians more land and independence, further endangering Israel’s very existence.  Thus his lack of support by Israelis.  He is indeed both blind, and mouse like in his actions.

 President Abbas has no control over Gaza, and his grip in the West Bank is tenuous, enforced by his police with assistance from the Israeli security forces.  Hamas won the election in the West Bank, as well as Gaza, and have called this conference meaningless.  Abbas can’t even control Fatah, the paramilitary and terrorist based wing of his own organization.  If he thinks any negotiations by him will be accepted by the Palestinians, he is also blind to reality, and will (if lucky) be soon banished to some mouse hole.

 President Bush has a domestic approval rating only slightly better than Congress.  His positions on illegal immigration, and other issues, have even eroded his support among those who elected him.  He has invited a myriad of nations to the conference, all but two with no real involvement or influence over the issues being discussed.  Four of the participants, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon could have resolved the Palestinian issues over the four decades when they had control over the Palestinian people.  All they did was segregate these people from their own citizenry, and aid in establishing the attitude of victimhood and revenge that has grown over the years.  If Mr. Bush thinks their participation helpful, he is blind to the facts, and is being toyed with as a cat plays with a mouse.

The only countries that have any actual influence are Saudi Arabia, and Iran.  The Saudis have religious credibility within the Sunni community and financial credibility through their infusion of money into the region.  Unfortunately, the financial support goes mainly to terrorist organizations, to insure them the money necessary to arm and carry on the attacks on Israel.  Their standing within the social and religious areas is through their support of spreading the precepts of Wahabism within the Muslim populace.  This brand of Islam preaches racial and religious hatred, and specifically calls for the genocide of Jews.  That the Saudi representatives refuse to shake hands with the Israeli attendees, or even appear in photos with them, makes it pretty clear to this observer that they have no interest in any peaceful settlement.

 Iran continues to support and arm Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, rearming them so that they can restart their active campaign to destroy Israel.  Hezbollah, like Hamas, has at its core belief the complete destruction of Israel.  Let me remind you that Hezbollah is second only to Al Qaida in the murder of Americans, and are as much an enemy of the United States as is Al Qaida.  The President of Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of both the United States and Israel, and a continuation of the Islamic Jihad against all things Western and democratic.  Somehow, I doubt that an equitable settlement is in their interest.

 The bottom line to me is that the entire comedy of this conference is an exercise in futility.  The Palestinians do not want an accord, they want Israel to disappear.  Almost all of the attendees want the same, even if they do not want to participate directly in Israel’s destruction.  Any pronouncement by the three main participants will be considered meaningless due to their weak standing at home and the overwhelming opposition to the continued existence of Israel by most other nations at the table.  My only question is how destructive the results can be to our only true friend in the region, and ultimately, to our own interests and influence.

But that is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.  After all, I am no expert.

THANK YOU COLONEL TIBBETS

 They are all gone now, except the youngest, my Uncle Bobby.  The last of my own greatest generation.

 Dad was in the Coast Guard, considered too old for active Navy duty.  Uncle Roy was in the Navy, as was his brother Wally.  Their youngest brother, Bobby, was a Marine pilot.  He had begun flying at fourteen, using the money from the job my Dad got him at a drug store to pay for his flying lessons.  Sneaking off to Palwaukee airport outside Chicago, where a sympathetic World War One veteran gave a young boy a chance to learn to soar with the eagles.

 Wally and Roy served on aircraft carriers, with the hope they could watch out for their younger brother.  But Bobby flew off fixed bases in the Pacific, flying the top line F4U Vought Corsair.  What Wally and Roy wound up watching were Kamikaze pilots trying their damnedest to kill them.  Uncle Roy had back problems the rest of his life from one of those pilots.

 Dad went first, while I was still in High School.  Uncle Wally was next, a few years after Dad.  Uncle Roy held on until after I was married, and had transferred away from Chicago.  But I went back, with my then small children, for his services.  Two of my nephews blew taps at the cemetery.  It was the first time I remember my retired career Marine Uncle Bobby crying.  He is in North Carolina now, still playing his beloved golf, and still referring to my Aunt Helen as his bride.

Gone too is my oldest cousin, Bob.  He landed at Utah Beach on D Day.  Temporarily blinded by an artillery shell air burst, he returned to the front after only a few days of recovery.  He lost a leg in France.  His oldest son gave the eulogy.  Until he spoke, most of the family never knew about the medals for valor Bob received.  Like my other family members, he never talked much about the war.

 I hear a lot of discussion about the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and the second bomb dropped three days later on Nagasaki.  It seems many historians, commentators, and pundits are still discussing the use of these weapons.  Serious debates about the need for their employment, the moral implications, and the precedents set.  Speculation, coupled with revisionist history, seem to make this an academic issue, open to many interpretations.  However, to me, it is not academic.  It is very personal.

 You see, all of my family survived World War Two.  Unlike 405,399 other American families, mine never received that dreaded visit from the Western Union man, bearing a telegram that started “We regret to inform you”.  One limb lost, burns, scars and shed blood were all felt deeply, but at least they came back.  But that could have been very different.

 An invasion of Japan would have resulted in an estimated one million American casualties, over a third of whom would have been killed.  Based on the experience of Okinawa, up to twenty million more Japanese civilians would have died.  Would my Uncle Bobby, Uncle Roy and Uncle Wally have survived?  Cousin Bob would have been here, as he had already been discharged with the loss of his leg.  Dad too, would have survived, as he was never called to combat duty.  But of the others, I understandably can’t say.  But I can say that ending the war without an invasion of Japan insured that those who were still alive would remain so. Because the war ended when it did, I grew up with an Uncle Roy, Uncle Wally, and Uncle Bobby.  And because the war ended when it did, 350,000 other American families welcomed back their sons, brothers, fathers and uncles.  And twenty million Japanese survived to rebuild both their country, and their society.

 Colonel Paul Tibbets passed away this week.  He piloted the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima that, together with the bombing of Nagasaki, finally ended World War II.  We flew the American flag at half staff at my house, not to commemorate a bomb, but to say thank you to Col. Tibbets on behalf of my family.

Thank you, Colonel Tibbets for completing the mission that you knew would affect the rest of your life.  Thank you, Colonel, for making the right decision.

 

THE GREAT IOWA PUMPKIN CAPER

 Now that the excitement and activities of Halloween are past, I would like to share some thoughts about the GREAT IOWA PUMPKIN CAPER, and its national implications.

 Over the past few days, Iowa has been the subject of many humorous comments from television and newspaper commentators and pundits, internet news sites, and bloggers of every stripe.  Usually, comments about Iowa are limited to the Caucus season, or have to do with our rural background.  We have come to expect that, and quietly continue to provide our children with an educational system that is consistently ranked in the top four of the fifty states, a crime rate that is infinitesimal compared to most states, and an agricultural system that not only feeds the Nation, but provides foodstuffs to the world.  From a personal standpoint, I am rarely embarrassed to say that although a Chicago native, I have happily lived in Iowa for more than nineteen years, and continue to do so even though now retired.

 However, what I and many of my neighbors and friends are calling the Pumpkin Caper is not only an embarrassment, but is an indicator of a new governmental program that may portend issues of concern to all of us.  I can think of no other way to describe this other than to call it a stealth tax that could be applied many other products and services, both at a state level, and a national level.

 The short version is that Iowa is now charging sales tax on pumpkins.  That this happened in an agricultural state is the reason for the recent surge of media comments. How this happened should be a fair warning to us all.

 The news stories have the basic story wrong when they call it a new tax.  It is not a new tax passed by our state legislature and signed into law by our governor.  Rather, it is based on a decision by those nameless and faceless government bureaucrats who are answerable to no one.

 Like many states, Iowa does not levy a sales tax on food.  Therefore, most farm produce is sold tax free.  However, in a secretive move not covered by any oversight, and not noted or reported on by any local media, the Iowa Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with the Department of Revenue, reclassified pumpkins from an agricultural product to a decoration.  As a decoration, pumpkins are now subject to the state sales tax.  This action was taken under the radar, by two department heads appointed by our newly elected Democratic governor.  A new tax, without any legislative action.

 I want you to take a moment to consider the implications of this action.  The state has opened a new source of revenue by simply reclassifying a product.  If we want to avoid paying sales tax, we must request a tax exemption form, and certify that the pumpkin will be used for food, and not as a decoration.  Most retailers were not aware of this tax change until after the Halloween season was upon us, and most pumpkins sold.  They must now pay the tax out of their own revenue, putting a strain on the small grocers who have a limited income already.  Does this mean that if I hang some leftover ears of sweet corn from my door for Thanksgiving, that the Department of revenue will knock on my door demanding that I pay a tax on them, because of its use as a decoration?  How about if my grandson carved the pumpkin, but my wife then baked the seeds as a treat for him?  Is this dual use, requiring a different form.  I don’t know, because this entire process was completed in secret.

 With national elections looming, and so many candidates already talking about instituting new taxes, or allowing previously passed tax cuts to expire, will this strategy expand to other states or federal taxes.  Can other states or the Federal government increase our taxes by reclassifying certain products and services?  Can other Governors and a new President, with their own appointees in place, use the process of product classification to increase their revenues without any opportunity for either the electorate or our representatives to consider the issue?  You may think not, but are you willing to bet your spendable income on it?

 While you may consider me an alarmist, I would ask that you read the wording of the original Stamp Act put in place by the British Government when we were still a colony, and then remember what stimulated the patriots who fought for our independence.  Their first battle cry was “No Taxation Without Representation”.

UPDATE

 A little light can often cure a multitude of ailments.  And embarrassment can even work on our politicos, even in today’s liberal environment.

 The good news is that the Governor of Iowa has suspended implementation of the pumpkin sales tax, and advised the Iowa Department of Revenue to refund the tax monies already collected.

 The bad news is that the classification of pumpkins as a decoration rather than an agricultural product was suspended, not rescinded, as the media reported.  That means the process and the classification remains in place, and can be reinstated by executive order, again without legislative oversight.  In addition, as a test application, the use of product classification to change tax status was a success, and can be applied to many other products and services in the future to enhance governmental revenues.  And not just in Iowa, but at state and Federal levels.  I am confident that this is not the last we have seen of the use of a stealth tax.

Day of Atonement

 I was thinking a bit yesterday about the coming Day of Atonement, and it’s applications for a Christian.  As a Catholic, I can see some relationship with the sacrament of Reconciliation, but there are significant differences.  It was then that I read an e-mail from Patrick, my youngest son, currently in Korea assigned to (deleted) AFB.  It was just a short note, the kind he sends every two or three days.  But in among the day to day items, was the following statement.

 “Also found out today that my commendation medal from (deleted) AFB
went through.  I should be presented the medal by the commander within a
few weeks, but am now authorized to wear the ribbon.  It's certainly one
of the highest ranking medals an enlisted member can get without
actually being in combat, so I am very proud to earn it.

Things are well and I will be giving you and Mom a call sometime this
weekend and definitely in time for your birthday.”

Pretty matter of fact, and would not mean much if you did not know the story.  Certainly not an item Patrick would brag about, other than to let me know his “ribbon rack” will have a new addition.  Long story short, he was alone in the control tower when a potentially disastrous situation occurred involving two Air Force A-10’s, and a civilian aircraft.  One of the A-10’s, and the civilian aircraft were both in distress, and there was a possibility of a mid air collision occurring within seconds, as well as one or the other distressed aircraft crashing if not landed quickly.  Patrick’s quick thinking and his handling of the situation resulted in all three aircraft landing safely, without any injury to any of the occupants.  By the way, none of these aircraft were assigned to Patrick’s base.  There are details that he could not share with me, and some things I cannot share with you.  But the story is riveting, with about 150 seconds of heart thumping suspense.

 As a result, he was recommended for a special commendation, which was approved and will be awarded to him at his new assignment.

 Back to the Day of Atonement.  While I understand the purpose of the day, I do not feel I am in the proper frame of mind to truly behave in an appropriate manner.  You see, I am in a state of pride.  Not in myself, for I know that would be sinful, but in my son.  He was responsible for saving the lives of three or more people.  Those who have read my previous writings about my son know how I feel about him.  But this award is illustrative of why I feel such pride.  I believe I am justified in feeling this way, because whatever pride he feels is muted, and will no doubt pass, as have his thoughts about the many brave, ethical and loving things he has done in his life.

 If I may offer a quote from the Torah, “He who saves one life is as if he saves the entire world.”  I will think about my faults on another day.  Today, I am enjoying the feelings that I have from raising such a son.

 May you derive peace of mind and spirit on this day.

 

 

GOODBYES – AND OTHER IMPORTANT STUFF

 

I have put aside almost everything to do with politics, Congress, stocks and market issues, foreign policy, the environment and virtually anything else that seems to trip the collective triggers of Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Socialists, Communists, Traditionalists, Progressives, Religious and Secularists; at least for the last week or so. I found it very easy to do, because I had some really important things that required my attention.

 

I had two goodbyes that demanded my attention.  One goodbye was to my youngest son.  He came home on a very short leave from the Air Force, before leaving for his next assignment, half a world away.  We will not see him for at least 12 months, and possibly longer.  I have written about him before, in previous posts, and will not repeat my feelings about his service.  Suffice to say that my pride in him is in constant struggle with my concerns for his safety.  I guess that puts me in company with millions of others who have family in the military.

 

The other goodbye was to my oldest and dearest friend.  In High School, we were ushers at the same suburban Chicago movie theatre.  We stood up for each other at our respective marriages, and served as Godfather to each others da