Myths

People believe in many things that are not true not because they really think they are true, but because they want to think they are true. Belief, and faith, is what separates religions from science. Religions can not be challenged, they require no proof and are unprovable. Science is a different matter.  Science should expect to be challenged. It requires challenge. It doesn't demand acceptance, threaten critics to silence them, declare the case closed. If I were to dispute gravity, a logical person would respond not by calling me a gravity denier, not by trying to silence me or get me fired, but by the simple proof of dropping an apple on my head. If I dispute global warming, it would be reasonable to expect the same response, facts to prove it's existence, ie to show that it is in fact hotter and that only man and not the sun or natural variations in climate can be responsible. Of course, this is hard to impossible to achieve.So instead we hear of rising sea levels, or a glacier melting somewhere. Claims are made that hurricanes are more powerful now than ever before, a ridiculous claim since the ability to measure hurricane strength is a recent achievement and little data exists. So now NASA and the High Priest of AGW, Dr. Hansen, have been caught faking data to prove their case. They claim it was just a mistake of course, an accident that just happened to be offered to the world as more proof of global warming. The hottest October on record, achieved by using temperatures from September. They should have used August, that would have been even better for their case. But it's good enough for Obama, who is intent on destroying American industry and our economy by driving the cost of energy out of sight. Based on a theory. Without proof.

Mao, Hoover, and Obama

It is ironic that the Communist Chinese are more pro growth and pro business than the Democrats. This is nothing new for the Communists, Mao himself reduced taxes from 33% to 25% to increase production on small farms. China just announced plans to reduce taxes on businesses to stimulate their economy. In the UK, the Labour party announced plans to seek tax cuts to stimulate their economy. Around the world, governments are recognizing that lower taxes increase growth.  Meanwhile, Obama wants the 2001 tax rates to expire, resulting in increases in income taxes, cap gains, and dividend taxes. In addition, he wants to increase those taxes even more, but only on 'the rich'. The last President that increased taxes on 'the rich' during a severe economic slowdown was Hoover. That worked out well. Obama seems intent on following in his footsteps.

Obama's Animal Farm

I started to write a scathing attack on Obama's America Serves plan to require 50 hours of community service for all middle and high school students, and 100 hours per year for all college students. I read the details on this plan directly on Obama's official web site, but when I when back to cut and paste the most offensive part of it into my article, I was surprised to see it was gone. There is no requirement! It's just a goal for middle and high school students, and for college students, now it's optional. If they perform the service they will get a $4000 credit. Did I just imagine that he had initially said everyone was REQUIRED to perform this service? So I did a little searching on the web, and found that others had seen the original version. Here is a link to one of them:
http://www.villagesoup.com/Forums/letters.cfm?TopicID=11969
So I didn't imagine it, Lord Obama did initially decree that all students must do as he commands, but then his minions re-wrote the script when he got flack for it. This is not the first time Obamabots have scrubbed web pages in an attempt to edit history. As they say "Four legs good, Two legs bad", or is it "Four legs good, two legs better" ? I can't remember.

Bottom up or top down?

Obama has declared his intention to pursue a 'bottom up' approach to the economy. It is his theory that by giving gov't checks to people you will spur consumption and invigorate the economy. Of course that money you are giving away was extracted from the economy (or borrowed from a future economy), so there is no net gain. This is the same approach tried repeatedly with the various 'stimulus packages', which spend huge sums of borrowed money for a temporary increase in demand. In actuality, much of the money goes to pay of existing debt and does not increase demand at all. The Republican approach is to cut taxes, specifically capital gains and corporate income taxes. The ideal way to spur the economy would be to set those tax rates to zero, permanently. Of course Democrats will scream and oppose this plan, so I propose an experiment. Let's set those taxes to zero in Texas, and set them to Obama's preferred level of 41% in New York. What do you suppose will happen? Let me tell you. The real estate market in Texas will explode. Tens of millions of high net worth investors will suddenly become Longhorn or Aggie fans. Every business in America will try to relocate to Texas. The extra 35% of their profit that they keep will help them to lower prices and expand production, driving their higher taxed competition out of business. Meanwhile, New York will be a very quiet, lonely place. So tell me, why are we surprised that companies are moving overseas under our current rules? And why can't Obama understand this?