Steve and Cokie Crack Me Up

Just had to share this little tidbit I noticed in the most recent column by Steve and Cokie Roberts. Its titled "Conservatives on brink of disaster on illegals" (I would include a link, but I can't seem to find an archive of their columns anywhere on the web - I find it occasionally in my local paper).

Among general recitations of the typically socially-conservative leanings of immigrants from south of the border, they take the time to trash the recent immigration bill passed in the House last winter, that would have made it a felony to be in the country illegally. Most amusingly, however, they include the following passage:

"[the bill] makes it a crime to live here illegally..."

I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I read this, most likely startling my fellow diners in a local fast food restaurant. Let me get this straight: Steve and Cokie Roberts are complaining that the House immigration bill would have made participating in an illegal activity a crime? Aren't they centuries and centuries too late to complain about this? I think its self-evident that ever since Hammurabi penned his code, its been a crime to commit illegal acts.

Its also interesting to note that Steve and Cokie commit the same old leftist error (or is it an error?) of confusing opposition to illegal immigration with some sort of imagined opposition to immigrants in general. This is a red herring of the first order. While there are a small number of people in America that could accurately be described as xenophobes, the average supporter of stricter border enforcement can't. We're simply asking for the laws to be enforced, and for people wishing to make their life in the U.S. to come here legally, so we can welcome them to the melting pot.

Mustache March a Huge Success

Thanks to all of you who pledged during the Mustache March fundraiser I participated in here at the office. Together, our company raised about $2000 for CURE Childhood Cancer, and had some fun doing it.

Mustache March

I'm currently participating in a fundraising event called "Mustache March". Several of us at my company, Nucleus Medical Art, are raising money for CURE Childhood Cancer through the month of March by growing mustaches. Yes, you read that right: I'll be growing a mustache this month. At the end of the month, we'll be taking photographs and we'll be judged for "Best In Show", "Most Disturbing", "Most Fitting", and "Dirt Lip" awards. I've never once tried to actually grow a mustache, so I'm pretty concerned about how this is going to turn out.

During the month, we're collecting pledges from our friends and family to go directly to CURE Childhood Cancer. If you'd like to see me with a mustache (I'm not sure I want to see me with a mustache), and you would like to help us raise money for this very worthy charity, would you consider making a pledge? Pledge amounts can vary from as little as $5 to as much as you'd like to give. Checks are made directly to "CURE Childhood Cancer". All I get out of it is the possible humiliation of winning the "Dirt Lip" award at the end of the month. You can get the check to me at any time during the month of March.

My daughter, Katie, complains bitterly when I miss just one day of shaving, much less 30. As many of you know, she can be very persuasive when she wants to be, so I'll need as much support as I can get. If you think you would like to help out, please email me and let me know what amount you would like to pledge. I plan to post a few pictures of the progress during the month, so check back often.

Great Tax Analogy Story

I am not the author of the following, but it's so appropriate and true on its face that I can't resist reproducing it here. It claims to be the work of a Dr. David Kamerschen, Ph.D. Here's to you, Dr. K...

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.

They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D

That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what everyone needs to keep in mind when the liberals start to scream about "tax cuts for the rich".

Confusion Regarding Roe v. Wade

While I don't generally agree with Cokie and Steve Roberts' opinions as outlined in their regular column, I have in the past found their commentary to be interesting, and occasionally insightful. That makes their recent column (link will come when I can find it online) all the more incredible to me. In the title and in the final paragraphs of their column, the Roberts' seem to be making a breathtakingly uninformed assertion: that overturning the Roe vs. Wade decision that prevented state and local governments from making abortion illegal could be accurately described as "legislating from the bench".

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would not, in and of itself, make abortion illegal. The effect of that 1973 decision was to prevent the Federal and state legislatures from passing laws that outlawed or restricted abortions. Overturning it would simply return to the state legislatures (and the people they represent) the authority to determine the legality of abortions in their jurisdiction. It would not be even remotely equivalent to the Supreme Court decreeing that abortion must be illegal (which WOULD be "legislating from the bench"). I find it hard to believe that the Roberts' are actually unaware of this fact, but multiple re-readings of their column seem to leave no other interpretation.

The Roberts' admit in their column that "flawed legal reasoning" was used to create the right to legal abortions. How correcting that admitted mistake made by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago and returning to the legislatures a power that the Constitution always intended them to have could be considered "legislating from the bench", I truly have no idea. The Roberts' also imply that today's America does not support making abortion illegal. If that's really the case, then they would have nothing to fear from a reversal, as no state legislature would vote to restrict abortion over the objections of its constituency.

I believe it bears repeating that overturning Roe vs. Wade today would NOT make abortion illegal. It would simply make the Supreme Court mute on the legality of abortion, as they are Constitutionally required to be. No thoughtful person could characterize that as "legislating from the bench". Inaccurate information like that promulgated in the Roberts' column does the country a great disservice, by confusing the situation and preventing a clear debate on the subject.

Global Warming, Schmobal Warming

In case you're one of the few who haven't figured it out yet, global warming (and all the terrible things that are alleged to happen along with it) is a giant hoax. The average global temperature is not rising any faster than it has in the past. The current warming trend extends back nearly 6,000 years, and is a result of the earth's exit from a "mini ice-age" that ended then. More importantly, try as they might, the eco-terrorists have completely failed to show any correlation between human activity and changes in temperature. None.

These people's lives, purpose, and most importantly, funding, are all wrapped up in there being a crisis. No crisis, no funding. No crisis, and they have to start over on what they will do with their lives. No wonder they cling so tenaciously to such an obviously invalid theory.

If you haven't read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", you should definitely do so. Its a novel, but it was written as the result of over 3 years of research that the author meticulously documents in footnotes and a complete bibliography. It clearly shows the global warming "crisis" to be exactly what it is: a fundraiser for radical eco-terrorist organizations.

The Hits Just Keep on Coming!

Wow. What a great start to a second term. President Bush and the conservatives have really racked up a number of big victories over the last weeks and months. Consider:

1) Super successful elections in Iraq. No one predicted that they would go as well as they did. The Iraqis are showing the world that they really want to take control of their country.

2) Federal legislation to control outrageous class action lawsuits easily passed the Senate yesterday. The House will pass it easily as well, and Bush will sign it. The legislation is intended to put an end to the regular "shake-down" of large businesses perpetrated often by venue-shopping trial attorneys who almost always come away from the suit with a lot more money in their pocket than the supposed "plaintiffs" receive.

3) The House of Representatives has passed immigration legislation that was left out of the intelligence reform bill passed recently that will provide uniform standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and will allow the federal government to build a fence along the border with Mexico. The first priority for Homeland Defense has to be getting control of our borders and illegal immigration.

4) And in my own home state of Georgia, both the state Senate and the state House have passed tort reform legislation to limit the amount of non-economic damages awarded in medical liability lawsuits. The bills will be reconciled and sent to the governor for a signature, which he'll provide.

Next up, saving Social Security. Its a great time to be an American...

2018 Is the Date To Watch

In 2018, the money being paid in to the Social Security program by workers is projected to fall below the amount of money being paid out of the Social Security program to retirees. "No problem.", some say, "We'll just draw on the current Social Security surplus to make up the difference."

Well, its true that there's currently a surplus in the Social Security program on paper, but that's all it is: paper. The "surplus" is entirely in the form of IOUs from the U.S. government. There is NO stack of money sitting somewhere labeled "Social Security Surplus". That money has been spent. When 2018 rolls around, and we try to draw from the "surplus", those IOUs will have to be paid off to do so. How will we pay off the IOUs? Raising taxes or cutting benefits. There's no other way.

The 2042 date is meaningless, because that's the date the money represented by those IOUs would run out. It ignores how we'll get the money to pay off those IOUs.

This is a crisis of epic proportions. We need to get this fixed, and we need to fix it NOW.

State of the Union Commercials

Very interesting commercials aired just following the State of the Union address on Fox News. They both turn out to be by the same organization. The first directs viewers to http://consumerfreedom.com/ to get information on stopping ridiculous lawsuits coming down the pike against food retailers and producers. The second ad identified PETA as the domestic terror cell that it is, and invited viewers to visit http://petapetition.com/ to sign a petition to revoke PETA's tax exempt status. Both are projects of the consumerfreedom.com people, and both deserve a thorough viewing.

Fantastic State of the Union Address

Incredible! What a wonderful address given by a very confident president. 150 federal agencies and programs cut or eliminated. Nirvana. The energy bill. The massive success in Iraq this past weekend. And the looming domestic fight, Social Security reform. This was a great speech.

Our Trip to Hawaii

Pictures from our trip to Hawaii. And even more pictures.