Search

About This Site

The purpose of this site is to allow people of of varying viewpoints to exchange commentary on current political issues, music, sports, or other topics of interest.

  

Editors:

Fornax, GrayRider, Machiavelli, Redbeard, SergeantJack, Skinnydipinacid, Wes, Winston,   and Zoy Clem

Contributors:

Bozio, Lenny, and Trackerdog

Maintenance Man:

Master Admin Dude

Subscribe
Powered by Squarespace

                             

Tuesday
23Sep

Is Not Publishing This Comment Racist as Well?

This story is merely back-up for a comment I made on a sun.times story about race affecting Obama...  Days have passed already and I see it still hasn't been accepted by her.    Something tells me it won't get published at all.

The original article by Mary Mitchell can be viewed here:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/mitchell/2008/09/apyahoo_news_poll_uncovers_whi.html

"Difficult time owning up to their own biases" (?)

You'll have to excuse me on this one, for I find it quite funny that you would consider mentioning that. It really does bring up the old moniker of the "pot calling the kettle black". You can blow that off as a racist statement if you wish, but those who know me and those who know of me know better than to simply brush me off as simple, nor a racist. I do know what race Obama really is, and I know why I won't be voting for him, and before I get started on this comment I can guarantee you that it isn't because of the color of his skin.

First things first... did you even notice the fact that you failed to mention the word "Democrats" in the story, a topic the poll you reference was the complete focus? Perhaps I'm just nitpicking, asking for simple details, but I found it to be a rather intriguing point.

In the story it states that "one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks". What I find most intriguing is that you find that number to be low, and one can only make assumptions from whay you may have meant by that? Did you mean that perhaps that is because there are no Republican opinions represented? Or that there are more racist Democrats? If not, I'd beg of you to clarify such a statement. Do you have any other polls or expertise on the subject that may back up such a claim beyond being black? Or are you merely "reporting" based on your own personal opinion, a standard that's becoming frighteningly more and more accepted?

I think one important thing to note, and I'm in no way defending any and all of the racist comments made in this report, is that the statements reported in this AP/Yahoo poll directed at white Democrats are of course going to be the most extreme examples of racism found in the survey.

I'm more interested to see if those polled were given a list of words to choose in their description of black people and simply pick one... (?) ...or did they all come up with the same statements on their own? I personally don't know the format in which these questions were asked and would be interested to find out how exactly they came up with what they did. (And don't simply say "because they're racist"... I tried to convince myself of that but already and it didn't work the first time ;O)

If I may play the white devil's advocate for a moment, because I know there are people that share this opinion,  many will argue that if it WEREN'T for Obama's race, the man wouldn't even be in this race today.   It quite possibly would have been a total blowout for Hillary and all we'd be talking about today would be Clinton vs McCain instead. 

I even have friends of various colors and faiths, who have called Obama "the Democrats' token black guy". One even went as far as to call him that famous derogatory term and referenced it in affiliation to Ted Kennedy and ownership. It's bad enough that I don't dare repeat it for fear of the rest of this comment being written of as the mindless ramblings of yet another racist, but that is a mere example of what was mouthed from a proud man of color. He laughed it off... I don't think many others would had that same statement been mouthed by me.

In essence I see Obama's race as a catch 22, and there is no factual evidence to disclaim either of us because what we are sharing here are our own personal opinions and we're both welcome to them. However I can't help but think that this man certainly would not be getting the pass that he has been getting, nor 90% or more of the predicted black vote getting handed directly to him if it weren't in fact for the color of his skin. It's as much of an asset to Obama as it is a weakness, an asset he's been so willing to promote (and if you don't believe me, you can ask Bill Clinton), thus I can't help but think that it evens itself out in the end. It sounds like this poll, as well as your article, don't help with racial relations either because both appear to be preying on white guilt. One can only hope this isn't another home stretch effort to help put your candidate over the top (uh... you ARE voting for Barack Obama.... correct?) by producing poll numbers that state "shame on you white Democrats for even considering voting for John McCain."

Another interesting slant could come in the form of a question that I will ask you: Which would you find more racist? 1/3 of White America not supporting Obama... or 9/10 of Black America not supporting McCain? In your mind, does John McCain not show support for the black community?

I also think it's silly to claim that this is unfair for Obama considering the majority is quickly becoming the minority. It won't be long before the whites in America will no longer represent the overwhelming numbers that they do, and quite frankly... I can't wait for it. I'm really growing tired of the debate, the excuses and the pestilent insistence that we're still such a racist country. That avenue goes both ways for all races. It's just as easy to point a finger at Caucasian, African Americans, Mexicans, Japanese, Russian, {pick your race} ...you'll find people in each and every race that has a percentage that bear hatred towards one of the others or more. Perhaps it's human nature, but I'd like to hope it's just our lack of a swift evolution in our culture. In a country filled with so many differing people of so many differing cultures, we've done nothing but bring this on ourselves. Our greatest challenge as a nation and it's future generation will be to overcome this obstacle... TOGETHER.

But we simply can't have it both ways. I think many Americans SO WANT to get over the racial divide that we share in this country that they are willing to vote for just about ANYBODY (and Barack Obama is becoming more and more the perfect example and template for my argument), in hopes of getting past this issue of race and make it just another part of this great country's history. That is is no way a slam on minorities as much as it is a slam on the whites wanting to vote in Obama, perhaps in hopes of making up for their own guilt.  

Imagine this... someday we may all be the same color.  I'll also bet even then we'll all still find something else to argue about.

Isn't it quite possible though that some people, perhaps a vast majority of people, don't wish to elect an inexperienced, race-conscious, extreme liberal senator who's been overshadowed by a shady past and the cast of characters and possible corruption it has brought with him? I think many more of the people who are simply voting against Obama as opposed to those voting for McCain (or at least seeing at it from a Republican point-of-view) look at it more in that sense than having it as a race issue.

I don't see what good it would do for race relations in this country if we elect the wrong person simply because of his race. He's made it a point again and again to verify to the public that he doesn't look like the "faces that we've seen on the dollar bill", however the more it's shoved down our throats, the less it looks like a real debate and the more it begins to look like an excuse already being made for his inevitable loss.

I'd hate to be the one to break this, but when I look at Barack Obama I see next to nothing in the realm of "change" and "hope". He's making it evermore clear that those words were merely catchy slogans for a sign. My greatest fear from this candidate is that he reminds me less and less of how far we've come from the back of the bus, and more of how low we've sunk towards the bottom of the barrel for our politicians.

But that's just my opinion, and just another white conservative one at that... so what do I know?


Saturday
16Aug

When the President Speaks

When the President Speaks, Everybody Yawns: Crude Oil and the Status Quo

By Dean Peters

August 16, 2008

At the time of President Bush’s energy speech on June 18, 2008 the average national wholesale price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was about $3.49 per gallon. In the thirty days prior the world market price for intermediate crude jumped another 15% from $117 to $139 per barrel.

The President, with Energy Secretary Bodman and Interior Secretary Kempthorne on either side, spoke before the media and laid the blame on the rise on supply and demand. President Bush said there are no quick fixes. He went on to admonish the Democratic congress for failing to work with the Administration on energy many years ago.

The President spoke on four general energy improvement themes:

  1. Allow drilling or exploitation of the following:
    • Outer continental shelf (OCS);
    • Green River Basin oil shale reserves in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming;
    • Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) in Alaska.
  1. Enhance refining capacity by streamlining the permitting process and ending the need to import processed crude which increases the cost of energy.
  1. Invest in alternative energy storage/conversion and renewable energy sources:
    • Fuel cells and better battery designs;
    • “Twenty in Ten” initiative where 20 percent of U.S. diesel and gasoline comes from renewable bio-fuels (36 billion gallons annually by 2022);
    • New mileage standards for vehicles of 35 miles-per-gallon by 2020.
  1. Get Congress to do something now:

· “Why is Congress on recess for the 4th of July when so many Americans suffer?”

· “Why do the Democrats continue to block the only viable options to reducing America’s energy independence?”

· This mess is absolutely not the fault of the Republicans.

In closing, the President assured all Americans that America has faced “similar strains before and we’ve overcome them together - and we can do that again. With faith in the innovative spirit of our people and a commitment to results in Washington, we will meet the energy challenges we face - and keep our economy the strongest, most vibrant, and most hopeful in the world.”

The goals of the President’s energy agenda have some merit. There is undoubtedly oil in the areas cited in his speech. Better technology could help offset America’s demand for unlimited energy. And immediate action is certainly warranted. Yet an examination of the underlying realities paints a somewhat somber outlook for us all. America will have to decide what kind of social changes we are willing to bear to be oil independent. More important than oil, however; the longer this run up lasts the weaker the U.S. gets. Because of foreign debt, America sits on the verge of an economic calamity that could make us all look nostalgically back on the Great Depression for the creature comforts it offered.

Mountains into Molehills

The Green River Basin is a major tributary to the Colorado River. It is a high and dry climate averaging 12 inches of rainfall or less annually. The landscape of plateaus cut by dry canyons is all but treeless excess for short cedars and pinion pines. The canyon walls bear evidence of the earth’s geology as each layer of pink, yellow, gray and brown speaks of oceans long gone, dinosaurs, and once vast forests now exposed as low-grade coal seams.

There is no doubt that this basin, some 13 million acres, is the largest deposit of oil shale in the world. The Basin and the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve share a common history. Both lands were set aside as part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Act of 1913 by President Howard Taft (although the USGS survey began several years earlier during the previous administration). President Roosevelt (Teddy for the historically impaired) was a staunch supporter of the progressive movement. The Progressives at the turn of the century believed the mad rush for oil would leave posterity without any resources unless the government stepped in and took the lands away from development. Thank you Mr. President!

Oil shale is a misnomer because the stuff in the shale is not a liquid. Instead the oil exists in the kerogen and must be extracted by pyrolitic means (it has to be cooked and squeezed). The traditional method involves underground room and pillar mining. The oil shale is removed, crushed to a manageable size, heated to 8000 F in a retort (think granddad’s corn whiskey still), steamed, and separated. The spent water goes for cleaning. The oil gets refined. And the washed out rubble, well, somewhere there needs to be a great big hole to throw it in. The result is good oil: sweet to smell, high gravity, ready for a thousand uses. With recoverable reserves in excess of 800 billion barrels, there is enough gasoline and diesel in the Green River Basin to make America energy independent for more than 100 years; maybe even 200 years.

With all of this potential, why are American oil companies not there making millions of barrels per day? There are three reasons. At a minimum oil-shale extraction costs $60 per barrel at least three times the cost of producing conventional oil. Secondly, the federal government owns 70% of the land and most of the lucrative geology. Lastly, it takes at least four barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil from oil shale. If fully operational at 3.6 million barrels per day, oil-shale conversion would need 87% of the annual water supply allotted to the State of Wyoming. That leaves just 200 gallons per year for personal consumption. Talk about a need for low flush toilets!

The American Southwest (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Tuscon, San Diego and all parts in between) must be willing to part with 430 million gallons of water a day for one million barrels of oil-shale production. That is a lot of swimming pools and golf courses to be repurposed. For those readers who have not lived in the Southwest, water is more precious than oil. On a side note, oil shale extraction is like making a mountain into a molehill. All that used up slag must be buried somewhere (Death Valley is a fairly deep hole that needs filling – let us start there). There is no guarantee that the slag will not contain high concentrations of unsavory minerals and metals that result from retortation.

Oil-shale mining will definitely create tens of thousands of high-paying jobs but a prospective job seeker must live out in the middle of nowhere. Towns, usually less than 2,000 in population, are few and far between. There is no infrastructure yet and not even enough electricity to support a large exploitation activity. To make matters worse, Utah is a dry state. What in the name of the Mormon’s God are all those thirsty miners going to do after work? Read the bible and drink lemonade like the locals? There will be a 24-7, bumper-to-bumper traffic jam 75 miles long into Evanston, Wyoming where they actually let people drive up to the bar window and order whiskey and beer (no one drinks wine in the Wild West).

A Template, a Platform, a Drill, a Big Pump, a Pipeline, and That is all I Need

Okay, forget oil-shale for now, what about those other places the President mentioned? Let leave the dry Southwest and go where there is no dry land at all. The outer continental shelf (OCS) is geologically beautiful for oil developers. The possible oil reserves are numerous. The Florida Straight is the most lucrative because its attractive geology consists of limestone formations laid down by 300 million years of coral growth. The largest and most prolific oil fields have historically come from limestone formations. If oil, and not seawater, does exist within the matrix of the limestone, it will be plenty – maybe even a giant field (very large area of oil under high pressure that flows of its own accord in amounts greater than 1 million barrels per day). A giant field is usually good for about 50 years before it starts to decline. But wait. There may be more than one giant out there.

The edge of the Atlantic continental shelf lies about 50 to 100 miles off the Eastern Seaboard. Neither the rich people in the Hamptons nor the poor people at Coney Island will be able to see any drilling operations. In water from 450 to 650 feet deep are a number of canyons formed by deltas that make up America’s Appalachian watershed. The Hudson River canyon stretches for a hundred miles out into the Atlantic Ocean where it spills into the main ocean. At the edge of the shelf the sea is a very manageable 600 feet deep; but travel two miles further east and the ocean depth suddenly plunges to 9,000 feet deep. Similar features are repeated all along the Eastern seaboard at the Wilmington Canyon, Baltimore Canyon and so on. The canyons have become repository of clays, sand, and limestone formations since the Appalachians first rose out of the ocean. Domes formed that allow oil to be trapped under high pressure. It is the same geology that allows America’s Gulf of Mexico fields to produce 25% of the Nation’s domestic oil – and these are old oil fields.

Offshore drilling is never cheaper than drilling on dry land. Opening up the Outer Continental Shelf will take many years of planning and construction of drilling and production handling platforms. An oil company will likely invest $1 billion dollars in such preliminary activity before the first drill bit even gets wet. What is sad is that America is not in the platform building business. If America has to move fast on this we will need to contract South Korea, Japan and China to build the stuff for us. UPS does not deliver to addresses where sharks live.

From an environmental standpoint there is the risk of a major spill either from a hurricane or because of an attack on oil platforms by a hostile government (think invisible Iranian submarines). Yet hurricanes come with a warning and oil technology makes it possible to seal wells at the ocean floor so that even if a platform capsizes no oil will be spilled. As for an attack by a foreign nation, if that happens, an oil spill will be the least of our worries. Even so, America is doing something worse than spilling oil now. New Jersey and New York have been dumping 36,000 tons of wet garbage at the edge of the OCS every year for 40 years. Let us face facts. If the Atlantic OCS is good enough for America’s garbage it is good enough for America’s drillers.

Then there is the Pacific OCS. Long Beach, California has been producing oil offshore for 50 years. But people do not see the pumping units because those mechanical rocking horses are hiding behind painted facades of ocean scenes, clouds and palm trees. The Pacific plates that make up the Western OCS are an oil making machine. As they slide westward thousands of feet of biomass (dead stuff) is sub-ducted, literally run over, by the plates. Because the geology is literally folded in half by this process, crude oil can become trapped in the overt thrust, like money in the fold of couch. These formations then rise again to form volcanoes and the coastal mountain ranges. However, no one in California wants drilling. The State is $15 billion in debt, the Governor recently ordered pay cuts for all State employees. An oil boom is just what California needs. Instead the movie stars quite illiterate that California is the second largest producer of domestic crude oil, will go holding progress hostage. If only California could harness the power of ego and forest fires America would not need oil.

What Alaska Needs Is a Good Mosquito Control Plan

Now let us think wet and dry (well, muddy at least) and cold. The final gem in America’s crown of oil independence is the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Remember, this land, part of the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 5 was originally set aside for energy reserves 95 years ago. The NPR-5 was the size of Ohio. ANWR was carved out of the NPR-5 and made into a National Reserve in 1960 and actually expanded in size during the Reagan Administration. Now we need it.

Consider that the nearby North Slope of Alaska was producing 1.2 million barrels of oil per day just 12 short years ago (it is down to 700 thousand barrels and declining now). ANWR is potentially three times as significant and the infrastructure is all there to begin test drilling of the size of the structure. Drilling for oil in ANWR is not going to kill any caribou. In fact, there are too many caribou and the herds have quadrupled in size since 1970 (after all the wolves were killed). Naturalists should worry about wolves not derricks. Secondly, ANWR is the most god-awful mosquito infested place on earth. The clouds of the blood sucking monsters are so thick in the summer that herds of caribou have been known to flee hysterically from an attack plunging headfirst into deep water and drowning. A little film of oil in the swamps would take care of the mosquitoes and the caribou will love America for the relief that brings. Besides, ANWR is 19.6 million acres. Surely the park can spare 10,000 acres for oil exploration.

But seriously, the North Pole is actually surrounded by oil reserves that stretch in almost a complete circle around it. The Russians (yes those sneaky Red Devils) actually sent a submarine to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean claiming these oil bearing structures. If other countries start drilling the ANWR will be drained. There is fear that Canadian development just across the border is already draining ANWR. Use it or lose it people!

Let Us All Go Green

Having run out of gems we now turn to America’s breadbasket. America has bio fuels. The President’s energy agenda has focused on replacing 20 percent of America’s transportation fuels with bio-fuels by the year 2020. The US consumes about 18 million barrels of oil daily. Of this, forty percent is used by transportation, or, 7 million barrels per day. By 2020, American farmers will need to grow enough corn and soy beans to produce 1.5 million barrels of bio fuel daily. Today ethanol fuels (biodiesel and ethanol enriched gasoline) make up less than one-tenth of one percent of the total transportation fuel consumed in America (2006 statistics). Even if that consumption has since doubled, America has a long way to go to reach a 20% goal in just 12 years. Since bio-fuels only reduce energy consumption by 15% (cost of processing), the net energy savings of a “20 by 20” policy is negligible. And what about the cost of converting from growing crops for energy versus crops for food? Will the price of a loaf of bread go up twenty-fold just to fill our gas tank in 2020? It is too bad that salmonella and e.-coli infected foods like tomatoes, spinach and jalapeno peppers cannot be used for bio-fuels!

In reality, the bio-fuels of the future will come from alga grown in ponds. Algae are a great way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and the green slime is an excellent source of bio-fuels. But where is America going to put theses ponds, especially one large enough to meet the 20 percent goal? Remember, algae left unchecked kills all the life in the water. We must think creatively. Since Lake Erie has history of serving this Nation’s industrial aspirations with sacrifice and courage perhaps the lake can be converted back into a giant algae pond that it was in the 1960’s?

What about other energy sources? Electric cars are a moot point – the energy that goes into the batteries must come from a power plant that might run on fuel oil, coal, or natural gas. There is no trade off. While the gasoline bill goes down the home electric bill goes up (unless you steal the juice from your neighbor or from work). Electric cars are simply a quid-pro-quo. Worse, it takes 15 seconds to get up to 60 miles-per-hour and no red-blooded American should stand for that.

Hydrogen fuel cells are already powering cars. Shell Oil recently demonstrated a converted GM Saturn. The car possessed reasonable power and did not pollute. But it did not run on water - it required pure hydrogen gas. Hydrogen – very explosive, highly flammable – requires special handling and storage. The auto’s fuel tank would have to be absolutely puncture proof. If gasoline leaks an application of foam fire retardant renders it harmless. Hydrogen cannot be contained. In a significant collision where the gas is released there will be an explosion, or, at the very least, a ball of fiery gas hot enough to melt steel. Imagine a car wreck in the city where a cloud of hydrogen escapes and floats up four stories where old lady Raggatulli is having her morning cigarette - KA BLOOEY. Remember the Hindenberg?

Secondly, the fuel cell is incredibly dangerous and too misunderstood to be released to the general public. For example; the capacitor stores 480 volts of electricity at 60 amperes – enough to literally explode the chest cavity of any human who feels it necessary to go poking around the motor with a screw driver. America would still need to develop ways of extracting hydrogen gas for fuel, most likely through electrolysis or from, you guessed it, crude oil.

Other Miscellaneous Cures and Space Aliens

In terms of energy independence, a real short term relief to high gasoline prices is going to come from increasing America’s refining and storage capacity so that developers can increase production of natural gas distillates as a source of gasoline. The greatest reserves of distillates exist, where else, at the OCS where vast amounts of methane distillates lie trapped as ice in the ocean floor. Occasionally these are released by natural forces causing underwater landslides (think 200 foot tall tsunami headed right for the Chesapeake Bay) and, some scientists theorize, climatic disasters resulting in an ice age. One popular theory is that ships and airplanes that suddenly go missing in the Bermuda Triangle are the result of being caught up in small releases of methane distillates. The water on which the ship floats is suddenly turned in champagne bubbles and the ship sinks instantly to the bottom of the sea. The gas that rises forces oxygen out of the air and pilots and passengers in aircraft suffocate and crash. If the OCS is developed, the pursuit and mediation of these methane pockets must be high on the list.

Though not mentioned by the President let us to throw these alternative fuels into the mix: foot power; bicycles; wind generators; a solar panel on every baseball cap; the tides; convection zones in the ocean; H3 fuel from the moon; energy crystals from Planet Zorp in the Pleiades; and, hot air from Fox News and MSNBC.

And Now for the Obligatory Conspiracy Theory

So, there are the alternatives to reduced American reliance on foreign oil. In a nutshell, the United States produces five percent of the world’s oil supply and consumes 25 percent of the world’s production of crude oil. We Americans are a bunch of gluttons joined at the hip and bucket seat to our automobiles. Life without an automobile is unthinkable, unimaginable, un-American. Even the President says we are a nation of “oil junkies.” Like drug users there is a dark side of the cost paid for this hydrocarbon habit.

In one of the most insidious and ironic aspects of the crude oil market is what happens to excess petro-dollars that foreign countries earn during boom cycles in the price of oil. All crude oil is traded in US Dollars. Generally, profits made by oil exporting countries are used up internally. When oil prices suddenly rise, oil exporting countries reap windfall profits and excess petro dollars. In the past, these petro-dollars were reinvested in industrial countries by the oil exporters. While Saudi Arabia continues to treat its excess petro dollars in this way, a growing number of other OPEC members and non-OPEC exporters are taking a different investment strategy. Since the 1970’s excess petro dollars began to be invested into emerging markets in Asia, Latin America and now Europe. These are dollars lost. This is one explanation why the value of the US Dollar has shrunk to the equivalent of $0.70 to the Euro when just ten years ago the US Dollar was $1.10 to the Euro. Why is this important?

The US buys oil and the countries we buy from reinvest those dollars back into America. Even countries we do not buy from invest their petro dollars here. Because America is an efficient economy we were able to turn those loans into increased GDP of sufficient return to offset the effects of devaluation. It was a zero-sum game. Now many petro dollars are going elsewhere. Investment during this current boom time is not returning to America. This causes negative GDP and dollar devaluation. The Federal Reserve, in response, continues to print money. Like a hammer and the anvil, these pressure points will push the US into a crisis like that faced by our Latin American neighbors in the 1980’s. Rampant inflation, negative growth, loan defaults on our international debt; these are the symptoms of the economic death spiral.

The only chip America has in the oil game is our power as consumers to alter the market forces of crude oil pricing. We must reduce the exodus of our weak dollar and stop the economic death spiral by reducing personal energy consumption in intelligent ways. In short, all Americans must end their gluttonous ways.

Former President Calvin Coolidge was wont to say that the “business of America is business.” These words are often cited as being typical of American attitude about the economy leading up to the Great Depression. The President Bush energy speech resounds like an echo of that era’s Normalcy, a hands-off, laissez fare attitude about the real dangers of greed and power and shenanigans played out by people we are supposed to trust. We have a Ship of State that is trying to sail on an ocean that no longer exists. Those whom the Captain of State rely on are unreliable.

It is tragic that this Administration’s energy policy does not ask Americans to do anything: no promise to open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (not much a cure anyway), no request to turn down the air conditioner, tune up the car, join car pools, use mass transportation, turn off lights and electrical appliances (including computers) when not in use – not even an admonishment to reduce energy consumption by a meager five percent. Apparently the Administration does not want to unleash force of America’s power not to consume. The President said this is a problem of supply and demand. Well, let us all quit demanding so much and see what happens!

Instead, American consumers are supposed to just keep on doing what we are doing and wait on business to solve the problem, (and if business cannot solve the problem then the Democrats are the problem). We are to, like the good Americans that have come before us, simply grin and bear the situation and believe that all will be fine. We must trust in Washington and Yankee know-how. The translation is we can all trust that big oil, the Federal Reserve, Senators, Representatives, OPEC and other not-so-friendly exporting countries know how to make the most of an oil bubble at the expense of the American consumer.

In the two months since the President’s speech, crude oil prices have moderated somewhat falling back from $148 to $117 per barrel (coincidentally the same price that oil sold for on June 18, the day of the speech). Gasoline has come down $0.25 per gallon but still rests at an unbearable price of $3.85 a gallon. This is no time for exuberance and this is not a trend. The Energy Information Agency, America’s energy think tank, projects that oil will continue to remain at around $120 per barrel throughout 2009. In other words, when energy demand peaks this winter, the price of oil will shoot up again and just in time to swear in the next Captain of State. All America needs now is one of these candidates to promise “a chicken in every pot, and a car in every garage (Herbert Hoover, 1928).” If that happens, America will be situated perfectly for a repeat of the Great Depression. As for the fate of President Bush, he has nothing to fear but fear itself. Why? He probably owns an oil well or two in Texas.

References

Bartis, J. T., Cecchine, G., Dixon, L., LaTourrette, T., Peterson, D. J., (2005). Oil Shale Development in the United States Prospects and Policy Issues. RAND Corporation ( MG-414-NETL). Retrieved on August 7, 2008 from the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Environmental Impact Statement database at http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm

Bush, George W. (2008). President Bush discusses energy. Speech in the Rose Garden (June 18, 2008). The White House, President George W. Bush (Washington, DC). Retrieved on August 7, 2008 from the White House database at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008

Energy Information Agency (2008). Alternatives to traditional transportation fuels 2006. US Department of Energy (Washington, DC). Retrieved from the EIA database on August 8, 2008 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/atftables/afvtransfuel_II.html#consumption

Editors (2007). Which president said “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage?” Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved on August 7, 2008 from the Information Please database at

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/promising-chicken-every-pot.html

Hirsch, E. D. Jr., Kett, Joseph F., and Trefil, James (Eds.) (2002). The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition . Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved on August 7, 2008 from the Bartlesby database at http://www.bartleby.com/59/12/businessofam.html

Pasek, Michael (2008). Beware! The crude oil bubble has not popped. Energy Market Newsletter (July 30, 2008). Ira Epstein & Company Futures (Chicago, IL).

Rona, Peter (2005). What lies beneath…The sea floor. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce. Ocean Explorer Webmaster (July 12, 2005). Retrieved on August 8, 2008 from the NOAA database at http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/deepeast01/background/beneath/beneath.html

Wiegland, Johannes (2008). Bank recycling of petro dollars to emerging markets economies during the current oil price boom. International Monetary Fund (WP/08/180). Retrieved on August 8, 2008 from the IDEAS database at http://ideas.repec.org/p/imf/imfwpa/08-180.html


Brag the Rag:
del.icio.us Digg Reddit StumbleUpon


Saturday
12Jul

Happy Birthday Caesar

Memories of Caesar

By J.L. Starr

Sunday, July 13th, is the birthday of Gaius Julius Caesar. As our BL RAG readers already know, the month of July was named in his honor. [note: since some believe his birthday fell on the 12th, we'll run this one day early.]

 

And who was Caesar? He was a decorated soldier, a brilliant general; a scholar, legal advocate, and statesman; priest and husband; father of Julia Caesaris, and father-in-law to the much older Pompey the Great; renowned writer and orator; conqueror of Gaul; Pontifex Maximus; consul and later dictator of Rome for life; companion for a time of the Egyptian Pharaoh Cleopatra VII Philopater (who bore him a son, Ptolemy XV Philopator Philometor Caesar [Caesarion]); he was also the father of our modern day calendar1.

 

Most people know of his later years, his military conquests, and his place in the fall of the Roman Republic. This piece delves a bit into Caesar's earlier years.



Gaius Julius was born two days before the Ides of Quinctilis in or around the year 654 A.U.C.2 to Gaius Julius Caesar and Aurelia Cotta. The Julia gens, or clan, of which newborn Gaius was a member by direct familial lines, claimed to be the heirs of Iulus, son of Aeneas from Troy, who was descended from the goddess Venus. Aeneas was also said to be an ancestor of Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome.  After the fall of Troy, Aeneas' son founded the city of Alba Longa, which lies southeast of Rome, and Aeneas served as its first king. 

 

With such ancestry, the Julia was considered one of the oldest and noblest patrician families in Rome: a family with the blood of kings running through its veins. This ancestral trait was to cause Caesar many problems later in his political life--his detractors often accused him of seeking to become the King of Rome, an anathema to Romans of all classes.

 

His cognomen, Caesar, was most likely not due to a caesarian section, as his mother survived his birth, and lived many years afterward--she raised Caesar's daughter after the death of his first wife. Apparently one of his ancestors, however, did come into the world this way. The term Caesar also indicates a healthy head of hair and some believe Caesar favored this definition; he was known in later years to comb his hair forward to hide his receding hairline.

 

Julius Caesar was a contemporary of Gaius Marius (his uncle by marriage), Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Publius Claudius Pulcher (Clodius), Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great), and Caesar's despicable and implacable foes, Marcus Porcius Cato (the Younger) and Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus.

 

Young Caesar was at one time the Flamen Dialis, a priest of Jupiter, who by the dictates of the office was forbidden to leave the city for more than one day, look upon a standing army, touch iron, or view a corpse-- all contrary duties for a man who was destined to be a general as great as (or greater than) the immortalized Alexander III of Macedon.

 

As another requirement of this priesthood, Caesar was ordered to marry another patrician, Cornelia Cinna Minor, and unlike a typical Roman marriage, he was to marry Cornelia in confarreatio (for life). Cornelia later bore him a daughter, Julia, who would one day become the wife of Gnaeus Pompey, sealing an alliance between Caesar, Pompey, and Marcus Licinius Crassus (the first Triumvirate).

 

Without this marriage to Cornelia, Caesar might not have had the opportunity to pursue what was later to prove a glorious military career, as Lucius Cornelius Cinna, Cornelia's father, had been proscribed by Sulla, which in effect caused Cinna's daughter to be stripped of her patrician status.  As the wife of the Flamen Dialis must be a patrician, Caesar was ordered to divorce her3, but he refused, which put his own legal status as a high priest in jeopardy as well as putting his life into danger. Because of this refusal, and due to his relationship to Marius and Cinna, Caesar was removed as Flamen Dialis, proscribed, and stripped of his inheritance (although later Sulla lifted this proscription after Caesar's mother and the Vestal Virgins pleaded his case).

 

Freed of his Flaminate burdens, and seemingly pardoned by Sulla, Caesar joined the military, and won the Civic Crown (one of the legions' highest awards) in the siege of Mytilene. This military honor, by an earlier Sullan decree, allowed Caesar automatic membership in the Senate. His accomplishment was soured somewhat by a rumor that arose in the same time frame, however. It was during this period of military service that stories of a homosexual liaison with Nicomedes IV, the king of Bithynia, surfaced. This rumor was used to some effect later on by his enemies ("...he's a man for every woman; and a woman for every man..."). 

 


After his first campaign as a soldier, and after the death of Sulla, Caesar returned to Rome and took up a legal career as an advocate, where he prosecuted Gaius Antonius Hybrida for plundering Greece as a legate under Sulla, and for allegedly torturing members of the local populace. Despite losing the case on Hybrida's appeal to the tribune of the Plebs, Caesar garnered praise for his oratory from none other than the master, Marcus Tullius Cicero. To perfect his rhetoric, Caesar traveled to Rhodes to study under Cicero's previous teacher, Appolonius Molon.

 

It was during this period as a private citizen that Caesar was captured by Cicilian pirates and ransomed. He demanded that the pirates double his ransom (which they did) and joked that he would crucify every one of the kidnappers upon his release. After his ransom was paid, Caesar did just that: he raised a fleet and hunted the pirates down, crucifying them in Pergamon, against the wishes of the Roman governor.

 

As stated earlier, Caesar had been stripped of his inheritance by Sulla and was (until his time in Gaul) perpetually in debt. That did not stop him from moving up the ladder politically, but it threaten him with financial ruin throughout his early career. He compounded his monetary woes further as an aedile by borrowing heavily to finance public works and spectacular games. 

 

At the death of the Pontifex Maximus, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, Caesar ran for the post and won, which allowed him to move to a much better residence called the Domus Publica near the Forum (Caesar until that time lived in Suburba, where citizens of the lowest classes resided).  One of his duties as Pontifex required that he periodically adjust the calendar to keep the seasons aligned. Later in life he used this authority to great effect when he introduced what we now know today as the Julian calendar. 

 

Despite his growing political fame, Caesar nevertheless remained deeply in debt. He managed to evade his creditors (and the accompanying prosecutions) long enough to draw a lot to govern Hispania Ulterior (Spain and Portugal) where he might make his fortune and repay his creditors; but it was only through the financial intervention of Marcus Crassus that Caesar was permitted leave Rome unprosecuted, allowing him to embark upon the next phase of his storied career.

***

 

And at this juncture it is time to call a halt. A few bits and pieces have been recollected and shared here to pay simple honors to a great man's life. Happy Birthday, Gaius Julius Caesar.

 

 

1The Gregorian calendar in use today is derived from the Julian calendar.

2Dates are approximate. A.U.C is the ab urba condita (roughly translated as 'from the founding of the City' [i.e. Rome]). The year 654 A.U.C. would roughly coincide with what we refer to as the year 100 BC.

3Despite the marriage being confarreatio, divorce was in this case considered legal, although the consequences of it would be highly unfavorable to the former wife.

 

This is intended specifically for entertainment purposes and as a tribute to a man who is arguably the West's greatest general.

 

Notes on sources: Other than the spellings, most of this is from memory of readings from Livy, Sallust, Suetonius, Cicero, and Appian, among others. To avoid complete embarrassment and refutation I did go back and spot check enough to feel confident that the piece closely follows the ancient sources. Comments are open, however. Feel free to point out any disparities or errors. JLS  

Start Ragging:
del.icio.us Digg Reddit StumbleUpon


Monday
30Jun

The Death Penalty Starts to Get Some of Its Own Treatment

The new trend: kill the death penalty!

First it starts with calling a baby raper's execution unjust, then they complain about the overall cost to execute a prisoner (as opposed to overall cost of housing them for the rest of their lives), can I go ahead and assume what's next... our politicians calling for what some hope will be the inevitable end to capital punishment.

Yes, it appears that the death penalty is taking even more heat!

Whatever happened to the good old days!?
Back when we used to KILL murderers, kiddie rapists, and all around scum of the earth?

When did our sensitivity start replacing our common sense?

It's all a bit shocking!

The reason for death penalty system's flaws seem simple enough... it's a taxpayer-funded, government-run system where millions of dollars are wasted on excess garbage, lawyers (not to be confused with garbage) and political/pandering nonsense... of course it's going to be flawed. It's a technique that's becoming all too familiar, yet completely unacceptable nonetheless. Is there a political solution? I financial solution?? Do we need to start talking about privatizing correctional facilities (which has been tried and proven effective)? It's hard for me to so quickly say no when we're so dependent on a system that is a necessity, yet at the same time sucking money from the public faster than if we put all these criminals up in a five-star hotel for the year, which may even qualify them for a free manicure.

According to the facts, California has executed 13 inmates since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1978 and none since 2005. There are 673 inmates on California's death row and 79 inmates there are still waiting to be appointed attorneys to prepare their automatic appeals to the California Supreme Court. So in 3 years the state has YET to execute a single person on death row, but we are to believe that it's the DEATH PENALTY that's causing a collapse?! Somebody please explain this to me, perhaps it's beyond my years.

There's another thing that I cannot fathom. We're still going to have criminals whether we have capital punishment or not... correct? We're still going to have people (and perhaps more) that will commit crimes, murder, senseless violence and all other things unholy, and SOME of those are certain to be deserving of a death sentence. So then how would discontinuing the death penalty save us as a society? We'll then be paying even more for food, clothing, health care, rehabilitation and every other penny raping item on the long list of prison "necessities". Some even think we need to give criminals nutrient supplements. Can I just shoot myself... or should I finish my thought first?

We will also be paying for it with the decay of our social integrity. We've heard the responses of "it'll just cause rapists to simply rape, but not murder" and the insane notion of "punishments fitting the crime" (which if that were the case, we'd make certain nasty child rapists got raped in prison) ...but in the end, what do we continue to hold as a beacon for what is right and what is wrong when we can't even set an example of the result for one's extreme, one in which we can compare to it's opposite? Do we risk the future of our nation, or of our children's nation by simply denying the potential good capital punishment can accomplish? Or are some of you still left thinking... "what good?"

My personal solution would be a simple process. 1st week the trial, then a 2 week review of the case, 1 week to prep for media, family, witnesses, etc... and after 28 days, dead. We need to limit the food, upkeep, LAWYERS, and tax payer money necessary for housing death row inmates, which we'll still be paying for even if the death penalty were to be abolished completely. If I wanted to be blatantly honest, in extreme cases of child rape, murder and other heinous acts, especially those involving extreme public outcry for justice, why bother hesitating? Shoot them in the back room of the courthouse, hang them in the public square, or pump them full of heroin, morphine and crank and let them run around city hall like a stoned jackrabbit until their hearts explode, I don't care how we do it... but something clearly needs to be done. Yes, of course there needs to be a level of common sense when it comes to our public systems, especially those who's elimination could result in the eminent release of dangerous criminals, some of which don't deserve a second chance.

Remember... housing them costs millions...
whereas bullets would probably be happily donated!


Sunday
01Jun

Death and Taxes

The Naked Truth About and Income Taxes and Income Tax Reform

by Dean Peters

 

Personal income tax is like a wart. It is there but we only discuss it with specialists. Like a man who develops hemorrhoids, only he and his proctologist know. But 2008 is an election year, the filing deadline is just a few weeks passed, and Wesley Snipes will be enjoying jail food from now until the election begins anew sometime in late 2010. In the spirit of the season and in memory of Wesley Snipes this is a good to time reflect on our American tax system and its future.

In 1053 AD, Leofric of Mercia was well into his governance of the small city of Coventry, England. In his zeal to promote public works he taxed everything imaginable including manure. His wife, the Lady Godiva, complained to him that his excessive taxation caused the citizens to work all day such that they had no time to reflect on and appreciate art, philosophy and the teachings of the Church. Leofric thought her somewhat daft but he humored his wife. He explained and she concurred that if the human body was made by God then it was the highest form of art. He said if she would ride completely nude through the market at its busiest hour then the citizens could experience art, philosophy and God through her. Also, he assured her that if she did he would indeed suspend taxes on all but horses for one year. Leofric was certain she would not. But, the very next day, the Lady Godiva, escorted on either side by fully clad chamber maids, rode through the noonday market of Coventry wearing nothing but her regal smile. It matters not that the Lady’s ride was more for the support of art and culture than tax protest - she did it and Leofric kept his word.

Now what does this bit of history have to do with income tax reform in 2008? Simply this; to get real tax reform the White House and the Congress would have agree philosophically then propose a dare between them. Philosophically, they might both agree that America needs a rational approach to taxation and budget that builds the economy, strengthens the dollar and dissolves the treasury debt. Then, Congress could dare the President to always submit a balanced budget. In return, the President could dare Congress to pass a flat income tax. No, I am not on medication but I am definitely dreaming here. But I’m not the only one.

There has been a lot of debate during this campaign for President about tax reform. As much as I love paying taxes, the word “reform” makes me simply ooze with delight. Of course the Democrats want to roll back the President Bush tax cuts, which is funny because I never noticed any tax cuts to begin with. Republicans, well, they definitely have a biggest wish list. Almost every candidate (except for the one with the dang nomination) proposed some variety of flat tax and running the IRS out of town.

But if you are voting based on any candidate’s tax plan you are wasting your time. Neither the President nor the US Senate sets tax policy. Why? The First Amendment gives that privilege and power solely to the US House of Representatives. That was fine for the first 100 years of our existence as a nation but by 1890 Congress had a country to support and a bureaucracy to rear. Excise taxes were not enough to build roads, fight wars, and pay pensions. When they did attempt to place taxes on the booming corporations formed out of the Industrial Revolution, they got their hands slapped badly. Congress needed the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. These 31 words approved by two-thirds of the States made it legal for Congress to tax everything that generates income (even manure). It’s such a simple amendment:

“The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

And it poses such a simple question:

“What in the hell were we thinking to give that much power to Congress back then?”

The answer is right there in the 1895 case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. The Supreme Court held that the 1894 law for a national income tax was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax - a power that only the States had under the Constitution. A direct tax stays in the place from where it is collected. Congress sought to collect the tax and use the resources elsewhere. In those days, the government was not supposed to keep the money, instead they redistributed back to the States through apportionment – shares of revenue based on congressional representation. Adding to the complexity, corporations at that time operated across State lines and overseas. The corporations claimed that taxation of their income should only be governed by the rules of the place in which the income was produced or from where they were based depending on which approach cost them less.

In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company the government tried to prove that a capital asset, like a property bond, had a cash equivalent that made it taxable if it had grown in value. The Supreme Court ruled that a capital asset was simply a piece of paper that had no taxable value until redeemed. Capital assets were a necessity of business but until actual conversion, no income was lost or created by the trading of these kinds of assets. By 1913 capitalism was working a little to well. It was the era of the monopoly busting and fair work and trade laws. The common wage earner in 1913 believed the big corporations were using the findings of this case above to avoid taxation. Thus they whole-heartedly supported those 31 words in the 16th amendment.

In the 95 yeas since, the 16th amendment had two far-reaching affects. Congress learned to distribute funds from income taxes in many new and creative ways. Congress is allowed to collect income taxes from any income source, no matter how much pretzel logic is required, from all US citizens and companies in the United States and abroad. This first affect has resulted in the United States of Entitlements and Earmarks (also called U-See!). The later affect is where the problems with income tax administration come into play. Since 1913 those 31 words grew to become the US Tax Code, a document that is somewhere between 44,000 and 60,000 pages (depending on the font used). At least 60,000 (although there are no hard numbers on this one) IRS employees work year round managing the interpretation and enforcement of the Code. This is the equivalent of two armies of clerks to oversee a regulatory forest that is largely dedicated to plugging tax schemes and making sense of new loopholes. In this way, the Code is very comparable to Microsoft Windows operating systems.

The vast majority of Americans exchange their services to an employer for monetary compensation - regardless whether this exchange is profitable or not. A portion of that compensation is kept from them and placed into a non-interest bearing account held by the US Treasury. At the end of the calendar year, all who have received income must justify their poverty to the government in the hope of getting back some of those withheld funds. The government makes available to Americans a variety of tax estimation and tax credit forms that somehow express what the House of Representatives intended. Each individual wage earner invests time and expenses to complete these forms to the best of their ability. Each wage earner confident in their knowledge of the forms and righteous expenses believes they are due some of that withholding. The US Internal Revenue Service, who are employed to understand the mind of the House of Representatives better than individual Americans, review these forms with computer efficiency and reports back to the individuals about six-weeks later. Shock and awe ensue. The IRS discovers all oversights (never the under sights), omissions, errata and goofy deductions. Hope is dashed by the demand for $340.16 of additional taxes – “please pay immediately.”

It is even worse for corporations. Without boring the reader to death, it takes a corporation three years to fill out last year’s income tax return. Corporations also get taxed twice. Once when they declare a profit was made. Then the shareholders who get those profits distributed to them as dividends and perhaps more stock, that income is taxed again. That is a 50% tax on the very organizations that create wealth and jobs for Americans. This does not sound like a country whose strength is in its capitalism. As a result corporations hire their own armies of CPA’s and lawyer-lobbyists and deploy every avenue possible to avoid the appearance of being profitable. It is a fine line to walk that balances the need to grow shareholder wealth on one side, keep a business running and growing in the middle, and deflects income taxes on the other side. This is not capitalism. This is madness.

The Tax Foundation estimates that tax payers in the United States spend $203 billion per year paying CPAs and administering the IRS.

Dick Armey, former Speaker of the House wrote in his USA Today editorial that Americans spend 6.2 billion hours just filling out their tax forms.

The IRS offers 1,116 tax forms on its 2008 web site (tax years 2006 – 2007).

Income taxes collected from private citizens are five times that collected from businesses.

The total amount of U.S. Treasury debt increased 70% over the past 10 years:

    • On April 26 2008 the Treasury debt stood at $9,333,202,141,247.10
    • Ten Years ago on this same date this debt was $5,505,293,755,428.21

    Whatever is going on, costs too much, causes capital flight, and it is not working! It is time to do something before we are all left naked and broken by the outcomes of the 16th amendment.

    Back in 1994 during the “Contract with America” years a number of Republicans touted the advantages of a flat income tax for individuals and businesses. Some even made it into a bill that went to the House of Representatives but all of them died by 1997. The concepts behind flat tax proposals can in part be attributed to a 1983 book by two Stanford University economists Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka entitled Low Tax, Simple Tax, Flat Tax. Having reviewed all the plans and the gist of a recent speech by Mr. Rabushka, a flat tax can be summed up as follows:

    “People, not businesses, pay taxes.”

    It sounds incredibly far-fetched, impossible; ridiculous even. But the fundamental economic logic is there. While there are varieties of flat tax plans they all follow this distinct concept:

    1. Establish a base income amount. Any person who does not earn over this amount would not pay any income tax. This amount will become the standard deduction for all other persons that earn income. Most proposals have concluded that this amount should be between $13,000 and $17,000 annual income. In a household where both spouses work, the total standard deduction would be $26,000 (assuming the lower base income amount).

    2. Do away with the IRS Form 1040 Schedule A completely. The only other deductions then allowable would be those established by the House of Representatives to promote US economic policy as history dictates. Presently that would include expenses for higher education, contributions to retirement savings accounts, and tax waivers for Americans serving overseas in the military or as ex-patriot employees. Eliminate the AMT, earned income credit, and all other deductions. The result would be a tax form that is less than one letter-sized page in length.

    3. Establish the flat tax rate for all income earned above the standard deduction and those deductions that promote US policy. Eliminate the progressive tax. Most flat-tax proposals and studies conducted by the US Treasury estimate this rate to be 17% to 21% (the US Treasury opts for the higher rate). This rate is fixed for all sources of income including capital gains regardless what the total amount of income is.

    4. All benefits provided by an employer (or a business owner for himself) become taxable and include insurance, social security payments, other forms of compensation including personal use of cars, properties or any other assets not explicitly used for business purposes including entertainment.

    5. Eliminate all deductions and income tax for wholly-owned businesses and corporations registered in the United States. Foreign-owned companies will be subject to US income tax.

    6. U.S. Excise taxes for various trust funds will remain in effect but will not be deductible. The House of Representatives retains the authority to set excise taxes as it sees fit but must apportion these back to the States.

    The impact of these six building blocks for a richer America will have no tax impact on the majority of wage earners in America. In fact, for those in the lower income brackets, taxes will decrease. Households with income between $80,000 and $200,000 will be the hardest hit. For one household that earned $91,500 in 2007, their flat-tax of 17% would have increased their tax burden by $600; just $50 per month.

    But now that businesses no longer need to deduct or pay income tax, what will these do with extra money earned from the savings? What about the rich and the wealthy that see their tax burden fall by 50%? They will use that money to make more money (and pay more taxes). More importantly, when the corporations and the rich in America have more money available they will act to:

    Benefit Citizens:

    • Create a flood of investment in America that can be used to revitalize the lives and cities of the rust belt and economic loss centers;
    • Improve the standard of living for all Americans making the cost of safety and security come down;
    • Bring back long lost benefits like sick leave, long-term employment opportunities, and pensions;
    • Reduce the need for entitlements because more Americans will be able to find decent work at a decent pay in a much more broad-based economy.

    Benefit the Nation’s Security:

    • Invest in business growth with profits rather than borrowed funds;
    • Invest in new research avenues and invigorate the Spirit of Yankee Know-how;
    • Keep US dollars at home instead of hiding them abroad;
    • Cause the value of the dollar to strengthen and reduce US susceptibility to economic warfare.

    Benefit the Morale and Management of the Nations Resources and Posterity:

    • Improve the ethical conduct of business managers and boards of directors who will stop looking at ways of avoiding taxes and focusing on building shareholder wealth;
    • This last affect will cause all Americans to invest in America again and make American a beacon of what is good about capitalism.
    Is this a fairy tale? Hardly! Out of the chaos of the fall of communism, Russia and other former soviet states like Estonia and Czechoslovakia adopted a flat tax method. Since enactment of a 13 percent flat income tax, Russians are actually paying their taxes. There are no more tax forms to fill out and the ruble has increased in value by 28%. According to the Adam Smith Institute, a flat tax helps the poor by eliminating their taxes and encourages the rich to pay up. Rather than spending their money trying to avoid taxes, it’s cheaper for the rich to just pay what’s due and instead focus on making more money.