SamSaid!

MEMORIES

     Nostalgia has a lot to be said for it, and I guess I am a softie when I think about all of the good things and good people to whom  I can relate. At the end of each year, the prominent periodicals devote time and coverage to the lives and accomplishments of the famous people who have added so much to the quality of life of all of us. One at a time, they pass away and it is not until late December that we realize the cumulative loss to out culture and our society.  All of these people  — household names  — are now gone.

     Imagine  –  Bob Hope, Katherine Hepburn,Patrick Moynihan, David Brinkley, Edward Teller, Gregory Peck, Art Carney, Johnny Cash, Mr. (Fred) Rogers, and for sports fans, Warren Spahn, Althea Gibson and Otto Graham. No doubt I have missed a few, but the list is impressive. These people were truly giants in their respective fields, and will be difficult if not impossible to replace. I guess there are new folks coming along who will achieve comparable legendary status someday, but it is hard to believe that they can reach the accomplishment levels of those cited above. I'll probably be thinking the same way next December when the 2004 list appears.

     In our own smaller worlds, we all hope that our presence here is meaningful and constructive to others. We won't get the publicity, but don't need it.

     Oh yes, there were others who departed this world in 2003  –  the bad guys. They didn't make the list. At least, not mine.

KHADDAFI

     Is it too good to be true?  Has the leopard really changed his spots? We may have to temper our elation with time before jumping on the Libyan bandwagon.

     One would think that the the Reagan aerial attack would have gotten Khaddafi's attention, but Libyan terrorists took down Pan Am 103 after that and then got caught.. No doubt the US backed sanctions hurt, and Khaddafi's oil industry really needed American capital. Why else would he offer to pay the victims of Pan Am 103?  But all of these factors pale into insignificance compared the the toppling of Saddam Hussein in three weeks and then pulling him out of a spider hole to face the world. The lily-livered legions of the left (see Michael Moore, the Hollywood elitists, and the UN) may rail against George Bush's unilateralism, but Khaddafi got the message. I doubt seriously that he has had a sincere change of heart. but as a pragmatist he can clearly see the harsh reality he now faces. Could I be next?? If the Iraqi conflict can be viewed as an investment, Khaddafi's inilateral abandonment of WMDs is assuredly a dividend. From our standpoint, if Khadaffi is honest in his committments (which most certainly will be monitored) Libya becomes another country we don't have to worry about short term.

     His critics denounce George Bush's political skills, but many things are breaking his way as 2003 comes to an end.. Saddam's tyranny has come to an abrupt end, Saddam has been captured and is in our hands,  the new Iraqi government is taking shape, the insurgency is gradually being contained in the Sunni triangle, The Dow is over 10,000, the US economy is in an upswing, Kaddhafi has renounced WMDs, and Howard Dean still suffers from foot in mouth disease. Maybe George is just lucky. But as golfers say, “Given the choice between being lucky and being good, take luck every time”.  

IOUs

     Foreign Policy as practiced by the major nations on earth can loosely be described as an ongoing exchange of  IOUs. Either that or a process of reciprocal “back scratching”. Generally, it is not a clear case of winners and losers, despite the pronouncements of “near term implications” and “long term implications” by the policy wonks inside the Beltway. But if you decide to bet on the outcome of  foreign policy manuevers, the best advice is to place your money on the guys with the largest number of chips on the table.  

     A year ago, we tried mightily to get the UN to muscle-up against Saddam via UN Resolution 1441. We had every reason to believe that we had the support of the big players to bring down Saddam, but then the French, Germans and Russians sandbagged us. So we had to go alone. Now that we have won militarily, we face the twin tasks of mopping up the insurgents and rebuilding Iraq. Not easy.

     Not long ago, Congress approved $87 Billion of US taxpayer money to undertake and complete these tasks. The first big chunk, $18 Billion, will be devoted to projects where competitive bidding will be required. George Bush has made it clear that the eligible bidders will NOT include the French, Germans, or Russians  — and they are outraged. I say, tough darts, guys, and hooray for you, George. By what conceivable reasoning would George Bush throw a big financial package to any of these 3 after they refused to do the dirty work and yanked the rug out from under us at the last minute? Should  we reward our friends, or the three sandbaggers?

     I don't think George Bush will have any trouble explaining his choice to the US Taxpayers. Could excluding the French, Germans and Russians  hurt our foreign policy long range? Maybe. It just depends on who needs who the most. And as long as those three refuse to forgive the Iraqi debt owed to them , George has a very strong hand. And all of this before Saddam begins to talk.

Hang in there, George.

FINALLY

     After all these months, Saddam Hussein was finally captured  –  alive. There he was, the “Ace of Spades” in the Iraqi deck, hiding in a hole in the ground. I guess that gives a whole new meaning to that quaint American expression, “An ace in the hole”.

     So everyone is happy about this development. Well, almost everybody. Certainly George Bush and his aides are delighted, but the Democrats intent on challenging George in 11/04 have to be muttering under their collective breaths. While offering carefully worded congratulations they must be cursing their luck at losing a potent campaign issue. Now the story will have to change to “why didn't you catch him earlier”, or “we have to get out of Iraq faster”, or “now we have to internationalize the Iraqi recovery”. Either that or the old reliable, “Where is Bin Laden?”

     But in addition to the Demo Dwarfs, there are others whose congratulations are muted. I refer of course to the French, Germans and Russians who no doubt wanted to find Saddam  — dead. Saddam will no doubt be given the chance to cop a plea to save his filthy hide, and the result just might depend upon how much he sings. We know of the underhanded dealings between Saddam and the European trio and under the right circumstances, he might be persuaded to share the details. Sooner or later, we will have to turn Saddam over to his Iraqi country men, but not before he has had ample time to spill his cowardly guts. We need to have the opportunity to show the Muslin world just what an animal he was  –  and how he was helped by his European buddies.

    No doubt, the Radio and TV networks will treat Saddam like OJ, the Balt/DC snipers, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, etc.,  –  saturation coverage for weeks. In that process, I am sure there will be reporters anxious to track the Saddam/French Connection. Personally I think it is there. I hope they find it.

THE DOW

     On December 11, the Dow Jones Industrial average closed above 10,000  –  10, 008 to be exact. The last time it hit that lofty level was 18 months ago. The high water mark had been reached at 11,700 4 years ago, before it dipped  to about 7,000. Most economically cognizant people enthused over the 10,000 closing and viewed it as a solid measure of a recovering economy. Actually, there isn't much difference between 9990 and 10,010, but the psychological effect of 10,000 + can't be ignored. I would happily join that cheering chorus but for the wave of scandals and wrongdoings properly laid at the feet of prominent financial organizations in 2003.

     In the early 21st century, most Americans save some of their money, but in contrast to the old days, they no longer put it away in old socks, pillow cases or under the mattress. Now, they invest it  –  in savings accounts, banks, S&Ls, stock, bonds, mutual funds etc etc. In so doing, they place their money in the hands of strangers they probably will never see, hear, or know about. There is an implicit assumption that their money will be safely invested and will be managed to their benefit  — honestly. Then we hear about massive mismanagement (maybe a kind way to put it) by enormously powerful and wealthy people in high places. Companies, mutual funds, stock brokerage firms, mutual funds, etc., etc. To read and hear about these people who command 7-figure salaries and are worth millions and millions of dollars stealing from funds assigned to their trust is more than just disquieting. The transgressions are not just legal, they are also morally and ethically wrong. Why do people who have no material wants or needs feel compelled to abuse their power by ripping off the system, skimming, misappropriating, or just plain stealing the invested funds of others who trusted them with their hard earned money?

     I believe in capitalism. In case that word is a bit jaded, I might say I believe in our regulated free enterprise system. In the USA, the investment base is larger and broader than it ever has been, so I have no worry about our system decaying from the bottom up. However, I do not have the same confidence when the economic system is viewed from the top down. I have a theory about these big time thieves who betray the trust of their small time investors. Blue collar crime or crimes of violence are often punished by stiff sentences while the white collar criminals get a slap on the wrist or probation. I think that the higher up the economic ladder we go, the more serious the crime becomes and the tougher the penalty should be. The sentences for these kinds of criminals ought to be geared to the level of responsibility of the prepetrator and the number of people affected by the crime. In short, throw the book and them and make sure these wealthy criminal fat cats understand that they will be spending years looking at the world thru a window with bars. No more probation and “public service”.  

     We cannot force individuals to be scrupulous and honest. But we can make it plain that the price of NOT being scrupulous and honest is very high. And that starts from the top down.

THE SENIORS

    The old folks are no doubt pleased over the passage of the Medicare reform bill last week which is sharply tilted in their favor. And indeed, maybe they deserve good treatment from their fellow (younger) citizens. But there are some impressive numbers to be considered here. First of all, it is reported that one out of every 4 registered voters in the country is a “senior”, and beyond that, these old folks are MOST likely to vote. That is a lot of leverage in the political world. Some of our Congressional leaders or psuedo-leaders voiced concerns over placing a huge financial burden on future generations to pay for this major undertaking. The price tag voiced  most often is 400 BILLION. Personally, I have little confidence in that number. As the limits of this law are stretched and stretched over time, I'd place my money on twice that amount. But whatever the amount, the old folks don't seem to be a bit concerned. Some of them mutter  — “pretty good, but not enough”. Not much question about who is driving the bus.

     Social Security is a big iceberg out in front of us, but there is some hope of accommodation and tax payer relief if a portion of the Plan is privatized, as has been proposed by George Bush.  The Democrats of course will fight to the death to oppose privatization. If they succeed, we will in 20 years be looking down the barrel at two big financial obligations run amok  — Social Security and Medicare. The country has seen large deficits before and survived. But the customary pork barrel spending plus the Terrorism war costs plus Social Security plus expanded Medicare is something far beyond what has been  faced  in the past. Maybe a new president down the road 15-20 years will have the job of facing all of them   –  maybe all at once.

     Arguably,  the expanded Medicare program will help George Bush win a second term. But the long term costs are worrisome  — even to some of us seniors! Buy now, pay later? Well, yes, someone will pay later  —-   but it won't be us seniors!

STEAMING

     Hilary is probably still seething over having been upstaged by George Bush in Baghdad. After careful preparation, Hilary was set for a grand entrance with cameras rolling to boost (?) the morale of the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and thus enhance her status as a female Presidential candidate tuned into the military. She probably envisioned a version of Margaret Thatcher or perhaps gaining the reputation of being America's Attilla the Hen. But then George swooped down into Baghdad and was greeted by a thunderous ovation from the troops with whom he shared Thanksgiving dinner. A master stroke of genius by our leader. An element of politics?? Sure  — and very well done.

     Naturally, Hilary's friends in the left leaning press condemned the Bush Thanksgiving visit as a publicity stunt motivated purely by politics  — sort of like landing on the aircraft carrier. They even insinuated that the whole plan was conceived to discredit Hilary  –  despite the fact the the Bush trip to Baghdad had been in the planning stages for months. No doubt, they were highly ticked off that Hilary was pushed off the front pages and buried somewhere between the comics and the classified ads. Couldn't happen to a nicer lady. The anti-Bush folks just will not concede that he is our Commander in Chief. Thank goodness he is! 

     The Iraq affair is messy and will have episodes of bad news in the months ahead.  If there is one thing we don't need it is short sighted politicos traveling to Iraq to tell the troops they should not be there in the first place. The Iraqi insurgents love to hear that kind of stuff from American politicians. The only thing the Clintons have to offer this country in a military sense is Bill's successful evasion of the draft. The best thing Hilary can do is stay at home and keep her trap shut. Fat chance!

AID AND COMFORT

     From now until next November the key question for Americans will be “Did George Bush REALLY have a choice?”  And that question, of course relates to Afghanistan and Iraq.

     The terrorist road map is not hard to follow from the first bombing of the NYC Trade Center to the US embassy bombings to the USS Cole to the horrific events of 9/11. To most people of ordinary sensibilities, the motives of the Mullah directed Murderous Middle-east Muslims are pretty clear  –  to kill Americans and inflict harm on this country. The track record of the Taliban in training terrorists in Afghanistan is well documented as are the mass killings and gassings of Saddam in Iraq. To me, it is almost unthinkable that some of our countrymen –  specifically including the Democratic Presidential midgets   –  are apologists for this kind of human behavior. They continue their assault on the President and pose the  pathetic UN as a realistic option. Honestly!!

     In growing up years, the most heinous crime one could imagine was treason  –  betraying one's country to the enemy. Yet nowadays, treason is almost never mentioned. I can't recall the last time anyone was accused of or convicted of treason. Not even the CIA and FBI turncoats who sold secrets to the Soviets. Nowadays, a lesser crime is cited –  presumably since it is easier to get a conviction or a confession.  That gets me around to giving “aid and comfort to the enemy”

     Joe Lieberman is unmistakably biased toward the Iraelis and is hard pressed to oppose the middle east policies of George Bush; but the rest of the Midgets are pathetic in their second guessing and back biting. Are they guilty of treason in undermining our foriegn policy? That may be  arguable. Are they giving aid and comfort to the enemy? No doubt in my mind. They sure are.

     The Murderous Muslim Madmen of the Middle-east keep saying, “Keep up the attacks, keep the pressure on, keep adding the casualities and the Americans will cut and run. They will not stay the course”. And here in our own country, we have the media driven Democrats who echo that chorus. “Withdraw, now”. Every time I see bird brains like Mosely Braun and Sharpton, I almost gag before changing channels.And the others are in lock-step.

     After 9/11, George Bush had 2 choices –   do nothing except plead with the ineffective and useless UN, or to take direct action. He tried the UN route and was sand-bagged by the French, Germans and Russians.  He then decided to go forward. Thank goodness he did.

     We may not see the adversaries surrounding us, but they are there. One day, they will strike again. In our free society, it is impossible to catch them all without converting the country into a police state. And insofar as our left wing loonies are concerned, I am reminded of the old saying, “None are so blind as those who WILL NOT see”.      And just imagine, the Democrats have NINE of these Mr Magoo's!

    George Bush was not content to sit back and wait for the next attack  — whether bio, chemo, hi-jacking or nuke. After 9/11, did he REALLY have a choice?  I think not!

AID

     The other day I read an article describing some outlandish expenditures buried under the title of Foreign Aid. It had something to do with the life expectancy of Camels and Yaks. That just added to my unease about how our tax dollars are being spent. As I visualize it, the Feds take my money back to Washington somewhere  and dump it into a huge pit. It's identity to me is long gone. Then every once in a while some unknown person comes a long with a big bucket and fills it up with “aid” for Uruguay, Nigeria, North Korea, Egypt, Uganda, India, Russia, Guatemala. Argentina, etc., etc., and the list goes on and on (this page isn't long enough). As taxpayers, we never see how much is taken or how it is spent. We are just to believe that it is “good” to help out our less fortunate bretheren.

     Now I don't quarrel with the humanitarian aspects of helping others  –  particularly those in dire straits with little or no chance to getting their heads above water. No doubt, we are wealthy and can afford it  –  at least up to a point. But foreign aid grants become permananet and too many of the recipients just come to expect it year after year  –  you know, “Hey Big Uncle, where is our foreign aid? And this time don't be so cheap and chintzy”. They just take it for granted, and we accept some sort of obligation, forever. No doubt, other countries resent us for our success, strength and wealth, and they gag at the thought of a sincere “Thank You, Americans”. If you are awaiting a foreign aid “thank you”, don't hold your breath. And also, don't insult them by attaching conditions to the aid package. Just let them blow the money any way they see fit.

     Some time back, a pundit quipped that forign aid was “taking money from the poorer citizens of a wealthy country and giving it to the wealthier citizens of poor country”. He sure got that right –  the Swiss bank accounts tell the tale   And we are not talking about pocket change here. It is millions and billions of dollars  –  every year. It was Senator Everett Dirksen (Ill.) who back in the 1960s offered the now famous sardonic comment about government spending, “…a million here, a million there, –  and pretty soon it adds up to real money”.  I wonder what he would say about a billion here, a billion there??

     But don't worry about it. Once the Government has your tax dollars, they aren't yours any more. How it is spent should be of no concern. Right??

INCOME TAX

     Creeping senility –  or its first cousin  –  is serious business, and I get concerned when things I have taken for granted just don't seem to be right. Take Federal Income Tax for example. Over 150 years ago, the different States and the Federal Government used a variety of approaches to tax the income of citizens in order to raise funds for governmental forays such as paying for wars  –  like for example, the Civil War. But the landmark event in our tax history was the passage of the 16th Amendment to the US Constituion in 1913. That opened the door to “progressive” taxation, meaning that some citizens could be taxed at a higher percentage of their income. Hello, tax brackets!!

      Having our better-off citizens pay more taxes sounds reasonable, and over the years the big argument has been how big the tax bite should be on the wealthy  –  20%, 35%, 50%, or higher. Of course, “soaking the rich” became a political rally cry for the Legions of the Left. Even with all of this, I blithely assumed that virtually all citizens paid SOMETHING in income tax, albeit a small amount. No so. Not any more.

     It should come as a shock to all of us to realize that 40-45% of our wage earners pay ZERO income tax, while over 90% of the revenue raised by the IRS comes from a scant 5% of Americans. I am amused to hear the plaintive cries that the tax code needs to be “fair”. FAIR? Now we have a bewildering assortment of tax credits and exemptions that result in the asinine situation that some citizens receive rebates from the IRS while not paying income tax in the first place. Think of that. Pay no taxes and get a rebate. The chanpions of income re-distribution must be giddy with excitement.

     I pay my taxes and have never been audited. I firmly believe that ALL Americans should share in the tax burden  — even if the minimum tax payment is $20 bucks per wage earner. Soak the Rich only takes us so far, and the tax schedules are so skewed now that they make no sense at all. How can they be fair when such a small number of tax payers carry so much of the load?  And how can 40-45% of our citizens get concerned about the tax structure when they don't pay any income tax anyway?

     Well if you need an answer to the preceding question, just ask the Beltway Buffoon, Teddy Kennedy, who has lived for 50+ years off the wealth of his old man and hasn't worked a day in his entire life. His mentality just doesn't accept the obvious fact that tax cuts apply to people who pay the taxes. George Bush's tax cuts do not mean a great deal to me in a quantified sense. But I will not take my gains in income and stuff them in a pillow. I will invest them  — just like millions of other Americans. It is just like putting more gasoline in the tank of a car. It makes the car go faster or further. But Teddy wants my money to spend on HIS big projects. And my car sits where it was. When it comes to taxes, I think his brain in a mosquito's bladder would look like a pea in a bass drum.

     Come to think of it, creeping senility is not a big concern of mine. Not yet.