Thursday, December 24, 2009

Corn Husker Kick Back -- What to Do?

I hope everyone reading my blog has heard about the Corn Husker Kick Back and the Florida "Medicare Advantage" given in exchange for "Yes" votes on the Health Care Takeover bill by their "undecided" Senators. While we citizens can seemingly do nothing about the bill now, I think we have one card to play. Here is what I did:


Dear Senator Feinstein:

Please fight to get California the same benefits under the Health Bill as it bestows on both Nebraska and Florida.

The desire of President Obama to sign a "deficit neutral" bill should not force California into bankruptcy. The Health Bill could do just that as it pushes a big Medicaid burden onto the states. With the California economy on life support, no state needs more relief from the increased costs than ours. California has far fewer per capita resources to absorb the Bill's large unfunded Medicaid mandate. At the same time, a greater percentage of Californians than Nebraskans rely on Medicaid.

If the new Medicaid burden will give Nebraska a headache, it will give California a concussion!

In addition to pushing costs onto the states, the Health Bill takes away an important senior benefit: Medicare Advantage--except that is for seniors living in Florida. Before my late father passed away, he frequently extolled the virtues of his Medicare Advantage plan. Imagine then, the frustration that thousands of California seniors will feel when their benefits disappear. Realizing that Floridians will continue enjoying their Medicare Advantage plans will only compound that frustration. While you may not be able to undo the unfair "Florida deal;" you can at least get California the same deal.

One would expect that having an experienced, loyal and highly regarded Senator would bring significant benefits to California. Instead, your loyalty to the cause of Health Care seems to have brought Californians less value and higher taxes.


Merry Christmas to all; and to all, a good night.

DJ

Monday, July 27, 2009

The Great Health Care Takeover


As Compared to Health Insurance


During an apparently unplanned moment of candor at his press conference on July 22, 2009, President Obama seems to have accidentally “tipped his Health Care hand.” He did so by honestly answering a question from Ms. Jane Strum about how he would have handled a health care situation faced by her mother. The primary physician had recommended that her then 100-year-old mother receive a pacemaker. The cardiologist said she was too old; fortunately, a second cardiologist agreed with the primary physician. In the event, her Mom got the pacemaker; mom is still vibrant and “still kicking around” at 105.


In contrast, the President essentially told Ms. Strum that under his plan, her mother would have gotten pain pills and been told to “go home and die.” Does that last seem a bit acerbic? Perhaps one might better paraphrase the comment as, “Dr. Obama says, ‘Take two aspirin, and don’t call me in the morning--or any other time! {deleted, see addendum}.’”


President Obama insists he wants everyone “to have coverage”—an insurance term, incidentally. His answer to Ms. Strum highlights the sharp contrast between his proposed Health Care Takeover and actual “insurance”:


in·sur·ance



2. a. Coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against specified loss in return for premiums paid.




More generally, for almost four thousand years, insurance has meant that one party assumed some of another party’s risk of loss in exchange for money in advance:


The Babylonians developed a system which was recorded in the famous Code of Hammurabi, c. 1750 BC, and practiced by early Mediterranean sailing merchants. If a merchant received a loan to fund his shipment, he would pay the lender an additional sum in exchange for the lender's guarantee to cancel the loan should the shipment be stolen. (See the History of Insurance caption in the linked article.)



Does President Obama really want everyone “to have coverage?” If that were true, the plan would spell out the all risks it was taking on, and those it was not. Moreover, since the plan forces everyone into the System, one would expect it to “cover” any and all risks now covered by our “broken, profit ridden, greed plagued, and inefficient” health insurance system. His accidental moment of candor shows that President Obama has no plan to cover all the risks currently assumed by insurance. In fact, no one can know which risks the government will cover at any given moment.




Clearly, the President has no more intention insuring anyone than he has of resigning his office. Instead, he wants to force everyone into a system of capriciously dispensed medical care; a system that will definitely include “go home and die” for some; and inferentially, “go home and suffer” for others.


Whatever you choose to call the President’s plan, please do not call it “insurance.”


==============================================================


Addendum: Reflections upon some acerbic comments


We ought to recognize that in his rather callous remark, President Obama breached an extraordinarily difficult point: an enormous percentage of a person's lifetime medical spending occurs in the last months of life. No compassionate society seems to have dealt effectively with that seemingly intractable issue; thus, Medicare is actuarially bankrupt; and European economies stagnate under almost unbearable tax burdens. At the same time, scrapping the current, admittedly flawed, essentially market based system for a "pig in a poke" patterned on flawed European models that have met with enormous difficulties does not seem wise.





A couple of acerbic terms:





  • "apparently unplanned moment of candor"


  • "accidental moment of candor"


  • President Obama has become well known for carefully choosing his words. Telling someone, "I would have sent your mother home to die" while trying to sell a health plan seems quite uncharacteristic of either the President or any salesperson. In addition, the comment seems clearly more candid than President Obama's typical style. Thus, while somewhat harsh, the two phrases seem fitting enough.



    dj

Monday, July 6, 2009

Identity Theft Gets a Boost!

Congress should move quickly to allow businesses that protect consumers from identity theft to continue doing so.



An article in the on-line magazine Wired.com reported that Federal District Judge Andrew Guilford ruled the protection offered by LifeLock, and presumably other companies that provide a similar service, was illegal. Reading the article could give one the idea, at least in your correspondent's mind, that the judge might have wanted to protect credit-reporting agencies from competition. In doing so, he exposed millions of consumers to identity theft.



We live in an era in which businesses; including credit-reporting agencies, “routinely” lose critical identifying data belonging to millions of consumers. We have seen far too many stories about a single breach exposed information on millions of consumers. In light of that fact, Judge Guilford’s ruling seems far worse than "unfortunate."



To cite a personal experience, two companies have purchased me credit-monitoring services: one for two years; one for a single year. They did so after they, or a vendor they used, lost or compromised my personal data. While not detailed here, I did give Senator Diane Feinstein some details in a letter— regardless of your experience, I hope you will write an equivalent letter demanding action.



Please note that, so far at least, my experience pales before the nightmares suffered by tens of thousands of identity theft victims. Some have suffered financial losses following an identity theft; others have spent hundreds of hours trying recover from identity theft; many have lost both money and hours.



The fact that Experian was the plaintiff in the case particularly galled me. A couple of years ago, two of the three primary credit-reporting agencies finally agreed that I had not resided in my former wife's “post office box”! This was after several years of on and off effort on my part; albeit, probably not more than twenty or thirty hours in total.



The third credit bureau insisted that I had indeed once lived in that 6 x 6 x 18 inch space; they had verification of my residence there! Moreover, the website of that bureau provided no reasonable means to correct their error. The address presumably remains on my credit report; I have not checked in a couple of years. Hence, you can imagine my sense outrage at seeing Judge Guilford take the side of Experian, and credit bureaus generally, in the case at hand.



As the article appeared in May, 2007, Congress may have moved to correct the law, called FACTA, so that businesses may once again protect the privacy of consumers.



In the likely case that Congress has not yet acted, please consider sending your Senators and member of the House a polite email asking them to address this issue during the current session.



Clicking on the title of this post will take you to the article at Wired.com.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

What’s wrong with this Picture?

Today, June 4, 2009, Yahoo news featured this headline:


"As of 9:18 a.m. PDT
"Can Obama win Muslim hearts and minds?


"Bin Laden threat"


Presumably, the writer of the headline thought that some chance existed that President Obama , in his Cairo speech, could indeed “win (a large number of) Muslim hearts and minds,”. Keep in mind that Muslims have harbored hostility towards the West, the Jewish People, and Christians generally since at least the Crusades, the last of which ended about A.D. 1296, if not longer.


Said differently, the headline seemed to presume that the President had at least a fighting chance to achieve what one could arguably call a miracle. Let us hope the writer was not educated in the United States; however, your correspondent remains dubious about that possibility.


Fortunately, in his Cairo speech, the President cautioned everyone, worldwide:
“I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can
eradicate years of mistrust nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon
all the complex questions that brought us to this point.”





Perhaps someone should caution the President against the dangers of excessive humility. After all, if he keeps saying things like that, the entire world could lose all hope for the future.


OK, that last paragraph was somewhat tongue in cheek. At the same time, it did seem to capture the general tenor of the President’s words; particularly since, instead of saying, “years of mistrust,” the President should have said, “centuries of mistrust.”


The most disturbing thing about the President’s remarks was that he seemed to feel compelled to include them in the speech at all. Of course, we do have that disturbing headline. Still, including the lines must say something about the President's view of the American People, the people of the world in general, his own powers of persuasion, or some combination of the three.


Regardless of his view of the hearers of his speech, one hopes the President believed his own cautionary words.


DJ

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

A Song for Our Time

Recently, some good person decided they needed my car's AM antenna more than I did. The inability to listen to my usual "right-wing, fascistic, insensitive claptrap" has left me floundering in the world of FM. Still, the FM Band has reminded me of an old truth: Country Music is Truly the Last Refuge of Rock and Roll. More importantly, I discovered "a song for our time;" albeit, a six year old song.




Years ago, I asked a musician friend to write a song with a similar, but more strident theme; to my knowledge, he never did. I took a shot; but, I am no song writer. Darryl Worley has indeed written "a song for our time." Click on the title of this post to hear 30 seconds of his song; and you will understand what I mean.




(The song should start automatically, probably in a new window. If a window opens but nothing plays, pick sample number one.)




I do hope you click the link; maybe buy the song; and, of course, pass along a link to this post. If the song is "old news" to you, you might want to pass it on anyway just to jar someone's memory. As for me, perhaps I need to listen to music on FM more than once or twice a year. After I scrape together ninety-nine cents, I may just download the single.



DJ

Saturday, April 25, 2009

On Friday, August 24, 2009, General David Patraeus suggested that civilian ship owners retain armed guards to protect their ships. His remarks re-kindled my interest in the possibilities of using "Q-Ships" to deter pirates.

Q-Ships were used during the previous two World Wars to disrupt enemy merchant vessels. Whether categorized as lightly armed warships made to look like merchant ships, or simply heavily armed merchantmen, Q-Ships normally flew neutral flags until they came upon an enemy ship. Then, they "showed their 'true colors'" and opened fire or took a prize.

Today, the Navy could lease container vessels for use as Q-Ships. Armor plated containers could provide "modular" means to add "specialized functions" and equipment: weapons, protection for the those manning the weapons, camera platforms for those gathering criminal evidence and, of course, public defenders to represent any captured pirates.


One wonders how keen on ship hijacking these young men would remain after two or three intended victims turned out to have "cargoes" of "quad-.50" machine guns, "obsolete" M-60 tanks, a few wire-guided anti-tank rockets, and a platoon of United States Marines.


While the Navy would probably feel an obligation to pick up any survivors from crippled speed boats, it would not trouble me if the Navy "left them where it found (or last saw) them." The Navy could simply say that there was not enough evidence to hold the survivors for trial; hence it left them alone--after, of course, sinking their boats.


Despite my tongue-in-cheek remarks, Q-ships seem to deserve a trial.


DJ

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Tomorrow, February 6, 2009, Newt Gingrich will "premiere" a DVD commemorating President Ronald Reagan. While this post percolated in the "I'll get a round TUIT'" section of my organic CPU for some time, the imminence of the DVD pushed the project to the front of the queue. To begin, please take a moment to reflect on the following:


Typically, at the change of Presidents, leading historians and political scientists rank every President from George Washington through the departing incumbent. Should the experts vote in 2052, which Presidents will they rate as the top three of the twentieth century?


Your correspondent created the challenge, or puzzle, after many years of listening to people bash President Reagan. Trying to defend President Reagan directly generally proved fruitless; however, giving them a challenge to consider normally moved them from stridency to reflection—perhaps a "Reagan-free reflection." A somewhat reasoned discussion, though certainly not always agreement, typically followed.


Among all of the responses to "the challenge," one stands out. Although your correspondent would not recognize her today, one woman burned her response vividly into my memory. Upon hearing the challenge, she thought a moment, and then followed:


"Franklin Roosevelt, I suppose . . .” , . Then, with an increasingly strident and frustrated tone, "You don't mean Reagan do you!"


Your correspondent diplomatically avoided the terms “checkmate" and "touché." Still, she had quickly reached to the core of the argument. History grades presidents on their accomplishments, not on charisma, looks, or speaking style. Here then, are the top three presidents of the Twentieth Century, the same today as years ago:


1. Franklin Roosevelt (apologies to my fellow Republicans)


2. Ronald Reagan


3. A two and a half way “toss up” among:


a. Teddy Roosevelt


b. Harry Truman


c Dwight Eisenhower - Ike had the "misfortune" of presiding over a period of relative peace and prosperity; this has tended to mask the significance of his accomplishments.


By now, the question burning—perhaps searing—in the hearts of some readers is, "How did Ronald Reagan rank so high/low on this list?" Here, in "sort of" priority order, are some of the accomplishments that earned Ronald Reagan a place in history that many of his peers will and would envy:


<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!


While far from Reagan's greatest accomplishment, someone defending Ronald Reagan does well to start here. Citing this one act blunts the most common Ronald Reagan myths: the myth of Reagan the front man, the puppet; the man reciting the lines fed to him by “his handlers”—those "real powers," and brains, in his Administration who really got everything done. The story of that most famous line in his most famous speech obliterates those ill-informed claims.


The man who wrote the speech included the line in his first draft after a visit to Berlin. Those “puppeteers” and “tune callers” repeatedly deleted the line from the speech over the following months. Each time, Ronald Reagan put the line back in. While flying to Berlin on Air Force One, the President was still receiving messages and Faxes begging him to take that "inflammatory remark" out of the speech. If Reagan were only a puppet or a toady, the world would never have heard those now universally recognizable words.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->Won the Cold War


Despite the claims of Mikhail Gorbachev and hoards of others to the contrary, polices implemented by Ronald Reagan ultimately buried the System that so confidently planned to bury us. Many specifics that follow will buttress this claim; so only two need appear here: ramping up the arms race; supporting the Afghan resistance. These two much maligned polices went far to bankrupt the Soviet Union and end the Cold War.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Regained strategic nuclear supremacy conceded by Carter


While "conceded” in this context could have several meanings, we will focus on the more important one. During the only Presidential debate of 1980, President Jimmy Carter acknowledged the Soviet lead; although he did not mention that he had lost it. President Carter probably felt quite smug after asking:


"Governor Reagan, what do you suppose would be the response of the Politburo if Secretary Brezhnev told them he planned to concede nuclear supremacy [back] to the United States?"


As in so many cases, President Carter apparently failed to consider the implications of his little coup. The answer in the end was of course, "Go broke trying to keep up."


<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->Regained, or extended, supremacy in conventional arms


Reagan took office at the lowest point of American power, relative to our adversaries, since about 1942. The world viewed Communism as the wave of the future, and America as beginning her inevitable decline. Ronald Reagan left America with a restored and peerless military; the Navy was the strongest we have ever had. No one believed that the Soviets could cavalierly threaten Western Europe, Asia or anyone outside of Eastern Europe.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->START talks


Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon began the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in the late 1960s. These were an effort to reduce the rate of increase in the deployment of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. While SALT may have slowed the rate of increase somewhat, nuclear weapons continued to increase in number. Ronald Regan had a different vision—perhaps more accurately he had a vision. START stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Talks.


During the 1980 Campaign, when Ronald Reagan proposed START, few believed he was serious, much less that he could pull it off. In rather unkind and cynical terms, some of Candidate Reagan’s detractors said START was just campaign rhetoric; that he had no intention to pursue the idea beyond Election Day. Your correspondent considered START a good, but probably doomed, idea. Fortunately, one “amateur” believed the idea was achievable; when he left office in 1989, the world the super powers had far fewer nuclear weapons aimed at each other than when that same “amateur” took office in 1981. Moreover, START not only survived his return to California, much of it remains in force at this writing.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->6. <!--[endif]-->INF Treaty


INF stands for “Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces.” In many ways, the INF Treaty highlights the most effective way to negotiate with a bully. In the mid-1970s, the Soviet Union began deploying what became 300 SS20 “Intermediate-Range” ballistic missiles, aimed them at the Western European NATO nations. President Carter began, and President Reagan carried through with, a plan to counter to the Soviet threat with additional ballistic missiles and cruise missiles that employed new technologically.


As negotiations dragged on, and American plans moved ahead, the Soviets pulled out all the stops to halt the NATO deployment. “Pulling out the stops” meant setting in motion what one might call their “Western European Assets”—leftists, pacifists, agents, fellow travelers and others—both on and off the Soviet payroll. In huge demonstrations, tens of thousands of people protested the U.S. Missiles. Banners, signs, and effigies of skeletons and missiles abounded. Oddly, no one seemed to protest the already deployed Soviet SS-20s. As stated above, “Assets . . . both on and off their payroll.”


Throughout the protests, and both diplomatic and domestic opposition, President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher stood resolute; eventually, leading to the treaty in Reykjavik eliminating intermediate range weapons in Europe. Many may remember watching the nightly news and seeing large explosions on TV as Soviet SS-20 and American Perishing and cruise missiles were blown up.


By standing firm in the face of intense pressure, President Reagan achieved a second deep reduction in deployed nuclear weapons: 900 Soviet warheads on 300 missiles—fewer NATO weapons because the Soviets backed off before NATO completed its deployment. Incidentally, the “Nuclear Freeze” movement emerged in the United States at this time, added its weight to the protests overseas, and eventually faded away along with the SS‑20s.


President Reagan could have gone along with advice to negotiate rather than risk provocation. That was the view of many experts, those masterminds “pulling his stings.” Had he done so, the Soviets would probably have long ago replaced aging SS-20s with updated SS-40s—incidentally, the Soviets never produced a missile that NATO named the SS-40.


Is this getting long? Consider a bookmark. Just don’t blame your correspondent; Ronald Reagan did all of this stuff; yours truly only reports it.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->7. <!--[endif]-->SDI – Star Wars


SDI—Strategic Defense Initiative—Star Wars—the final nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union. Need one say more? Only that we should hope someone finishes enough of SDI to stop incoming missiles launched from some rogue state. Dick Morris coined the term “Kamikaze Country” to describe the new threat.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->8. <!--[endif]-->From National Ennui to National Confidence and Optimism


In a rare moment of clarity and candor, Jimmy Carter characterized the mood of America at one point during his presidency as “a state of national ennui.” Paraphrased that meant a we were all “bummed out”; bummed out by Post Viet Nam Syndrome; bummed out by American decline internationally; and most of all, bummed out by the horrible state into which Jimmy Carter had plunged both the nation and the world. It is rare that a peacetime president can have as huge an impact as did Jimmy Carter; sadly, that huge effect was a nightmare.


As Carter before him, Ronald Reagan had a material effect on America and the world; and he did so during a time of relative peace. President Reagan took office with America in a state of national ennui; and he left office with America in a state of unparalleled, to then, optimism and prosperity. The 1984 Reelection Campaign used the theme, “It’s Morning Again in America”; and truly, it was.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->9. <!--[endif]-->From Stagflation to Growth and Prosperity


In his 1976 Campaign, Jimmy Carter developed the “Misery Index”: defined as the rate of inflation plus the rate of unemployment. Candidate Carter castigated President Ford, saying that he, or anyone, should be ashamed to run for reelection with a misery index above 10. In 1980, the rate of inflation was 13% (Wikipedia says 11.8%); unemployment was around 9% (Wikipedia says 7.5%); the Prime Interest Rate was 21%; Jimmy Carter did not make much of the Misery Index in 1980.


When Ronald Reagan left office, Inflation was about 6.5% and falling; the Prime Rate was around 9%, and falling; the January 1989 unemployment rate was 5.4%, well below Carter’s.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->10. <!--[endif]-->Income Tax Reform


In what one could arguably call the most important single domestic policy stroke of an American presidential pen, Ronald Reagan eliminated the profit that had accrued until then to the Federal Government from inflation. The action in question was the 1981 tax law that indexed the basic income tax tables. In addition to bringing about an end to inflation, indexing slowed, if it did not completely halt, the phenomenon known as bracket creep.


Bracket creep came about when, because of your pay rate went up to match inflation. Your increased money income put you in a higher bracket despite the fact it did not purchase any more. In 1980, I received a 16% pay increase—13.5% for the Cost of Living plus 2.5% for merit. The inflation part alone pushed me into a higher tax bracket. Thus, the money I received just to “tread water” caused my tax rate to go up and my real income to drop. Indexing fixed most of that by moving up all the numbers when the CPI went up. Lacking an incentive to cause inflation, Federal Policies changed; and since then, inflation has remained quietly lurking in the background. While more important than “Stagflation” and “National Ennui”, they came first to lay a foundation for the importance of tax indexing.


The much-maligned Tax Reform Act of 1986 further improved the tax code by reducing the number of tax rates from 24 to three and then two. The law offset revenue losses by eliminating most tax loopholes. Both of these measures increased incentives for entrepreneurs and decreased the negative affect of the tax code on the economy. Perhaps least known, the Tax Reform Act of 1986—backed by Democrat Tip O’Neil—dropped about 16 million poor families from the income tax rolls. Not a bad piece of legislation.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->11. <!--[endif]-->Leon Klinghoffer / Achille Lauro


For those who do not recall, Leon Klinghoffer was an American passenger on the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro. Palestinians hijacked the ship; and, because Klinghoffer was a Jew and an American, the hijackers murdered him. The ship then sailed into Egypt amid a hero’s welcome. Later, the “heroes” boarded an airliner for Libya, their point of origin; presumably, expecting another hero’s welcome. Moments after Egyptian airliner entered international air space, the landing, and running lights on a flight of American Navy F-14 fighters suddenly “lit up” all around the plane. The F‑14s ordered the Egyptians to follow them or be forced down. The plane landed in Italy where the terrorist murders received long prison sentences. Sadly, one, Ibrahim Fatayer Abdelatif, was released in 2008.


In his speech announcing the capture President Reagan gave a memorable warning to the terrorists, “You can run; but you cannot hide.” Few Presidents would have “the moxie” to order such a bold action; but then, Ronald Reagan was both a visionary, and bold.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->12. <!--[endif]-->Berlin Night Club Bombing Response


On April 5, 1986, terrorists bombed a discothèque in Berlin killing several Americans, including two soldiers, and injuring many more. Nine days later, after finding evidence of Libyan complicity, the United States bombed that nation in retaliation for the attack. Among the targets of the American planes was the home of Muammer Gaddafi. Sadly, his stepdaughter died in the raid. After the retaliatory bombing, Gaddafi “cooled his jets” somewhat. That is, he apparently decided to tone down his support for terror—although the Lockerbie bombing, one month before Ronald Reagan left office, was a noteworthy exception.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->13. <!--[endif]-->Grenada Rescue


In late October 1983, a pro Castro radical wrested control of the small island nation of Grenada from an ostensibly more moderate pro Castro regime. Chaos immediately erupted; order broke down. Cuban construction workers, probably combat engineers as events would show, continued their work of building a military grade extension of an airport runway they had begun months before. The chaos led to concerns over stability of the Caribbean; and, over the fears that about 800 Americans attending medical schools on the island would become hostages. Remember that President Reagan took office literally during the closing moments of the Iran Hostage Crisis; the Iranians released their last prisoners just as Ronald Reagan finished taking the oath of office.


President Reagan doubtless had all of this on his mind as he listened to pleas for help from the leaders of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States and weighed his options. As was his way, Reagan acted quickly, sending troops to liberate the tiny island nation and rescue the American students—likely averting a second national humiliation. At the time, a friend at work observed that the Cuban "construction workers" were almost certainly soldiers; "civilians do not fight that well,” he said. Incidentally, this Marine Reservist friend did not say "almost certainly”; he said, "were.”


<!--[if !supportLists]-->14. <!--[endif]-->Latin America


When President Reagan took office, dictators or authoritarian regimes ruled much of Latin America. When he left office, all but two Latin American nations were representative republics with free and frequent elections. Technically, only Cuba remained a dictatorship; however, in one Latin American country, the same political party won every Presidential election from 1924 through 2000. Somehow, counting that nation as a representative republic, as of 1989, seems less than accurate.


Part of the liberation of Latin America involved toppling the Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaraguathis brings up the Iran-Contra Affair. Given the overall outcome, historians will probably treat Iran-Contra much more gently than do most Reagan detractors of today. Keep in mind what happened when the Sandinistas boldly believed their own bilge. They recklessly held a fair election and got tossed out on their collective ear; the entire nation then spontaneously partied in the streets for a week.


<!--[if !supportLists]-->15. <!--[endif]-->PATCO Strike


In 1981, the Air Traffic Controllers staged an illegal strike that tied up air travel nationwide, and threatened to continue doing so until the Federal Government caved in. During a hastily called Cabinet meeting, all but one person there was engaged in a rather heated, if not frantic, discussion of options and risks. One of them though seemed so disinterested that he had begun to "doodle" on a yellow pad. That was, of course, the President.


After doodling a while longer, President Reagan nudged James Baker, showed him the yellow pad, and told him to call a press conference in a few minutes. There, President Reagan read his "doodles" to the world. In short, precise and firm words, he told the strikers to return to work in 48 hours or find other jobs.


Nobody believed President Reagan would carry out his threat; the end of air travel and commerce would follow? When the deadline passed, those controllers who stayed home lost their jobs. Amid much hand wringing, commentators nationwide predicted disaster; one in Los Angeles gravely stated, "people will die." In the end, no one died, air travel resumed, and commerce continued. Again, the bold decisiveness of Ronald Reagan had triumphed over the sober, experienced, thoughtfulness of "his handlers."


Naturally, you have seen a somewhat winnowed down list of Reagan accomplishments. Some readers probably still feel that the author omitted some critical Reagan achievement; of course some will wonder how I, or anyone, could admire Ronald Reagan. Many readers may have noticed that "PATCO" would have gone well with the story of the Berlin Speech. It seemed fitting though to put PATCO here. It makes a nice bookend to emphasize that Ronald Reagan kept a firm hand on the tiller of policy during his Presidency. PATCO also demonstrates how President Reagan so often accomplished the unthinkable; all the while proving that he meant what he said; and making every effort to do what he promised. Contrary to what the “best minds in America” believed, this unique individual proved that he could indeed become, Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President of the United States.


Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Stimulus and Readiness

As Congress works to transform President Obama's economic recovery package into a trillion-dollar picnic featuring pork, payoffs, and pandering, let us hope they to divert some funds to the task of restoring part of America's strained, if not quite broken, military.

Former President Bush, while pursing the campaigns in Iraq and elsewhere, allowed Defense budgets to remain dangerously low. As a consequence, the last three presidents have left America with a military that finds much of its equipment in a state of disrepair, and with some equipment "just plain used up" and in need of replacement. The much needed stimulus package provides an opportunity to restore some of the military capability lost over the last 20 years. One program in particular fulfills a critical need; and satisfies the requirements President Obama defined for programs in the stimulus package. That program, the F-22 Raptor, would:

  • Put people to work quickly. Because the Bush Administration left the program on life support, the F-22 is, to steal a term from governors and mayors, "shovel ready". The production line is in place, costs, suppliers, and contractors are known. All that remains is to call back laid off workers, order and receive raw materials, and start building planes.

  • Provide a lasting benefit. The F-22 will have a life span of 20 to 40 years; considerably longer than the playground equipment, pothole repairs, and water slides proposed by many state and local politicians.

  • Stimulate the Economy quickly by spending most of the money over a couple of years. The F-22 will employ myriad contractors and thousands of workers in many states. Running production lines three shifts a day will get Americans back to work and deliver more bang for each buck than spreading the purchases out over many years. Building the F-22s faster will also restore Air Force capability more quickly, which could in turn deter a war; a "small benefit" that might ultimately save the lives of many.

Arguments that fighter planes have become unneeded, obsolete relics of the Cold War reflect a dangerous tunnel vision. If you disagree, please consider what might happen if Taiwan made an ambiguous statement that China misinterpreted as a declaration of independence. China has emphatically stated that such a move would lead to war. Provoked or not, one reality above all others has deterred any Chinese move across the 90 mile Taiwan Strait. Regardless of how many troops China dispatches to Taiwan, the Chinese understand that none of those troops can swim across the last 45 miles of the Strait.

For ten years or so, China has worked on modernizing its Air Force; a program that continues today. With equally capable pilots, most of the new planes could match or best a new F-15--much less one degraded by age. Of greater concern, if China believed, rightly or wrongly, that it could gain and hold air superiority over the Strait, China might gamble on an invasion--regardless of provocation. Thus, a role seems to remain for air superiority fighters.

Designed to replace aging F-15s, the Air Force urgently needs the F-22. During 2007, an F-15 broke apart in the air, injuring the pilot. The crash investigation found flaws that endangered pilots and indicated that some F-15s had simply worn out. For about three months, the Air Force grounded or severely curtailed the operation of roughly half of the F-15 fleet. The grounded planes had, and still have, the mission of winning and holding control of the air; that is, flying against and defeating enemy fighter planes. The pilots of those F-15s could easily find themselves up against newer, more modern fighters; fighters that are superior to brand new F-15s.


Deployed in sufficient numbers, the Raptor could give America unchallenged control of the air for years to come; years during which no power would dare challenge our Air Force. In the face of that opportunity, imagine your son, grandson, or any American pilot flying from Okinawa to Taiwan in a worn out F-15 to duel newer, more advanced fighters.

For years, the Bush Administration ignored Air Force requests and defied Congress by holding up production of the Raptor. A continued willingness to send American pilots against up to date fighters in F-15s, and later in F-35s, instead of more capable F-22s breaks faith with our pilots and those on land and sea who depend on them. Doing so when Congress plans to toss a trillion dollars around like hot cakes at a church breakfast borders on criminal malfeasance. The time has come to fund enough F-22s to allow the Air Force to do its job.


If you agree with the views presented here, please send a note to your senators; your Congressman probably has a safe seat; hence, he or she does not care what you think or how you vote.


DJ