SamSaid!

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. 

MOVIES

     Whenever the US has been on a wartime footing, we have invariably had a barrage of war movies in which it hasn't been difficult to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys. It was true in WW I, WW II, Korea, and Vietnam. Not so now. The Middle East Muslim terrorists have attacked us on our own ground as well as diverse places around the world. But the Hollywood moguls are reluctant to produce movies showing them as the bad guys. After all, we wouldn't want to offend the sensitivities of Arab/Americans, now, would we?? So when we get to terrorist movies, the bad guys are neo-Nazis (always a safe target) or aliens from outer space. But certainly, we wouldn't want to portray Bin Laden or Saddam as the bad guys. Doesn't that make you wonder?

     When you think about it, the answer is fairly obvious. The Hollywood elite have a deep and abiding hatred of George Bush, and they will NOT under any circumstances produce a film that makes George or his administration look good. Maybe 10 years from now (carefully edited), but not now. Take Barbara Streisand and her ilk as examples. In other years they have been very vocal in active support of Israel. Have you seen or heard anything from them lately? Without the support of Geo Bush and his administration, Israel could be toast. Even with the fate of Israel on the line, she and her buddies won't utter a word that could be construed as support for George Bush.

     So when you look for war movies, look for WWII re-runs or space movies. For decades, movies were designed to form public opinion, but when it comes to the war on terrorism in 2002-3, don't wait for the long beard ragheads, Bin Laden, or Saddam to be the bad guys. Look for the abuse of power in the White House. After all, the events of 9/11 were isolated, and the terrorist menace is overblown. That's the world as Hollywood sees it. If George B gets the credit, trash the whole idea.

     If you have a better idea, ask yourself, “why no war movies over the 2002-3 war on terrorism?”  After 2 years, still no movie about 9/11?  Oliver Stone would undoubtedly call it a CIA plot.

LICENSE

     I have had a driver's license for more years than I might want to confess. When I first got one, it was my key to independence  — to go where I wanted when I wanted. Then I put it in my wallet and largely forgot about it  — at least until I got my first speeding ticket. For a long time,  the key documents to protect and save were your birth certificate and your social security number. Not so any more.

     The other day I went down to the local branch office of my bank to make a deposit. I not only had to show my bank card, but also my driver's license for ID. The same thing is true in cashing a check. With ID verification more and more prevalent, the driver's license becomes critically important. At the airport of course, I have to present my ticket and my photo ID Driver's license. Never leave home without it, as the saying goes.

     With the realization of the importance of the Driver's license, I was apalled that our former Gov Gray Davis signed a law to grant CA Driver's  licenses to ILLEGAL aliens. Now get this  — these people have entered this country illegally  –  by whatever means. They live here, work here (some), enjoy our tax supported health care and welfare, put their kids in the public schools, and otherwise receive (demand) the benfits of citizenship. No passports, no visas, no green cards  — nothing. But just so they could  be more comfortable in living here illegally, then Governor Davis wanted them to have driver's licenses also. A few months back he said he opposed the measure and would veto it. Then in an effort to salvage what is left of his career, he signed the law in an effort to get a few more Hispanic votes in the recall election which he lost. 

     In days when we are trying to get a handle on illegal aliens who have evil intent, now we will issue to them a driver's license so they can move around more freely Maybe they can peddle more drugs that way. Doesn't that really hit a warm spot in thinking of big time political figures and how they spend our tax dollars and pander to special causes?

       Personally, I don't support the general notion of a recall election, but the thought of 3 more years of Gray Davis overcame any reservation I might otherwise have. I don't know if Arnold will be any better, but he sure can't be any worse. Everytime I think about securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegals, I will think of potential drug peddlers and terrorists driving around freely with a Davis license in their pockets.

     Isn't that pathetic??

RUSH

     Rush Limbaugh is a brash outspoken chap who will offer his opinion at most everthing at the drop of a hat. His radio show has legions of listeners and followers who see him as a breath fresh air or refreshing contrast from the claptrap coming left leaning mass media people  His critics regard him as a buffoon  –  perhaps an understatement.

     Earlier this year Rush accepted a job as one of the panelists on the ESPN NFL Today program preceding the Sunday telecasts. Although he is a rabid pro football fan, Rush was not hired for his football expertise. He was hired for his commentary with the thorough understanding that it would be controversial. The ESPN objective was higher ratings. Rush was the vehicle.

      A couple of weeks go, Rush commented that the QB of the Philadelphia Eagles, Donovan McNabb, was overrated because most of  the media people wanted to see a black QB succeed. He also offered the view that much of the Eagles' recent success was due to a fierce defense rather than McNabb's skills at Quaterback.  Now, one of two things obtains here,   i.e.,  A) was what Rush said true, or B) was what Rush said  his opinion. Either way, what is wrong with what he said?  Isn't that what he was hired to do?  Lots of football experts would opt for (A), and most listeners would accept (B). But not the lefties of the press.

     Naturally the Jesse Jacksons of the world and their surrogates expressed outrage over the “racist and insensitive” comments by Rush. What if his assertions were true?  Is that racist and/or insensitive? What if his comments or criticisms were well considered opinion? Is that racist or insensitive?  No doubt under a bit of pressure from ESPN, Rush resigned although sticking to his guns in what he said. The NFL rosters nowadays are 75% black. Is that Racism? Also, all NFL teams can be fined for failing to interview a black coach candidate (see Detroit),  before hiring one. Racist?

    There are two things at play here. When public criticism is directed at a black, it is automatically racist. And when it comes to insensitivty, the rule is “don't say things like that even if they are true.” Disgusting.

     I'll stick with Rush, and I hope he still says what he thinks. And for California fans, I am voting YES on Proposition 54.

MURPHY

     During the past few weeks, George Bush has met Murphy's Law, i.e., if anything can go wrong it will. His ratings have gone south with the “leak”, “WMDs”, the instability in Iraq, and the incessant carping of the 10 dwarfs seeking to oppose him next year. But on one point, he is dead right  –  i.e., the war against the terrorists will be long and difficult. Already we are seeing signs of erosion in the public will. The ACLU is more interested in defending POWs than in securing our defense  –  and the liberal courts concur. They erect all kinds of legal barriers and challenges to frustrate the FBI and CIA and  simply make it easier for terrorists to move around the country and function  as terrorists. I personally don't give a ratzass about so called civil rights when 9/11 types want to use our own rules to facilitate their evil intents. John Ashcroft is the current whipping boy, along with Pres Bush. People nowadays are more complacent, and the impact of 9/11 clearly has diminished. You know, “can't happen here”.

     In dealing with the Islamic terrorists, the problem is not the Islamic religion or the Koran. It is the long beard raghead clerics who preach death and destruction. The Ayatollas and the Mullahs. How do you deal with religious fanatics who think that suicide mssions are OK? And still talk about the “faithful” and the “infidels”? What kind of a God is Allah? Until there is a change of thought among the Islamic religious leaders, there will be no respite from terrorism. We are geared up to defeat STATE terrorism; religious terrorism is another animal. They can breed more than we can intercept and destroy. Do we have the will power to wage a 20 year war against these people? That is very likely what it will take. George knows that, but his left wing buddies keep saying that we must “negotiate”. Baloney (in lieu of the more appropriate barnyard term).

     There are 6 Million muslims in this country. Who knows what their leaders (American?) may have in mind? In some cases they may very well sponsor or support terrorism on our own soil. The thing that bothers me most about them is their silence. I just don't see them standing up against these long beard raghead muslim clerics who support suicide bombings and other terrorist activity  — clandestinely or openly.  Their silence is enough for all of us to beware.

     There are those who argue that the Koran does not espouse violence and death. I'm not convinced, and I won't be until prominent Islamic leaders rise and denounce their brothers who choose to interpret the Koran in their violent murderous way. But come to think of it, the Muslims  needn't fear  —  the good old ACLU will be right behind them and their “rights”.

     Great country, huh?  At least as long as it lasts.