Environmental Concerns

Writing this column would be impossible without the support and feedback from my readers. A recent email brought this response from a reader.

"I've always wondered, do Republicans think that they don't have to drink the same water and breath the same air? I'm serious. Because this anti-environment movement implies that you don't believe that the destruction of the environment will actually affect you.
I guess I should just limit this to anti-environment Republicans because I know that Jane for example is a Republican that supports cleaning up the environment. You see, Jane has a M.S. in Biology. So she is acutely aware that we all drink the same water and breath the same air and if we keep destroying the earth, we will ultimately destroy ourselves."
"There is a reason why SE Texas has some of the highest rates of cancer."

First, I want to address the issue that the reader assumes that I am a Republican. Although I support a lot of Republican ideas, I am not a Republican. To be a member of any political party for a particular issue undermines the freedom of thought from an individual.

For instance, the issue of abortion cuts both ways. There are several issues but for the purpose of this piece, I will restrict it to abortion.

A loyal party member must adopt the party positions. A loyal Republican must be anti-abortion whether he/she believes in it or not. Some may feel that there are circumstances that justify abortion, while others do not. But to be a loyal party member you have to accept the official party position or the party can't stand united.

Being a loyal Democrat means that you have to accept abortion on demand or you are not a good loyal Democrat. Those who believe differently and espouse a different viewpoint would alienate a large segment of other party faithful.

The point is, that in order to be a loyal party member, anything you feel that is at odds with the party leadership cannot be tolerated. That is freedom lost. I choose to maintain my freedom and not abandon principles that I hold dear. My choice of a candidate is always the one whose ideas are closest to my own. I think most people can relate to that, but I also want the freedom to speak out when I am at odds with the prevailing thought. So thanks, but no thanks to joining a political party.

The Environment:

The next statements in her response were particularly interesting. The reader's impression is that because I understand that CO2 is not the bad guy it is made out to be, that I want poisoned water and to breathe dirty air. I make no apologies for daring to oppose what is surely one of the most outlandish of all Liberal ideas - that the planet is warming because of CO2.

The "Green" movement has honorable objectives. The Greens also deserve credit for making us all aware of the things that we do to mess things up. Their efforts have made the public acutely aware of how important maintaining our planet is to all of us. But their efforts have been hi-jacked by politicians for reasons of gaining political power. To make the 'big show' for the voters, politicians have pushed for projects that are neither well planned nor thought through. What usually ensues is a bigger mess than what we started with. Projects espoused but not adapted, without careful planning, will yield more catastrophes in the future. For instance, here are a few examples.

The Lithium Battery Powered Car:

Expert after expert tells us that the technology is not ready for full-scale adoption of this power source. Those same experts do not detail those obstacles. But to a wide-eyed "Green", that is only a trifling matter.

To begin with, Lithium does not lie on the ground just waiting to be picked up. Lithium is found bound to other elements and it is a complex chemical process to purify it. There are some economical by-products to the process, but also a lot of mess discard to deal with. Lithium is found in mostly remote and pristine areas such as old salt lakebeds. The yield is very low, even for the high-grade deposits.


To get a more detailed picture of the production outlook and processes in purifying Lithium go to this web address.

http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf

This report confirms that mass production of Lithium Carbonate is not environmentally sound, it will cause irreparable ecological damage to ecosystems that should be protected, and that LiIon propulsion is incompatible with the notion of the "Green Car".

Mass adoption of the Lithium power source for a "Green" car will put pressures on Lithium production and will drastically run up the cost of manufacture. Large areas of wilderness will have to be sacrificed to create settling ponds for the Lithium Carbonate mixture to vaporize. This is all before the purifying process can begin.

Do not look to this technology in the present tense to save the planet!

Hydrogen Power:

Hydrogen power is one of the most promising technologies around, but there are still problems to consider. The hydrogen powered car discharges water vapor. Water vapor itself is far and away more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. If we swap to all hydrogen, which also is not just lying around for us to use, we will have to manage the constantly wet streets, and in cities with a lot of traffic, the average temperature could rise with so much water vapor in the air.

Ethanol:

This was supposed to be another of those great ideas. So with plenty of Government subsidies, ethanol became a reality only to find that there were plenty of problems related to both its source and getting it to the refineries for blending. Without taxpayer subsidies, the cost would be prohibitive to the American consumer. And that was only the beginning of the problem. So many farmers worldwide started producing corn for ethanol, (they could make more money) that prices skyrocketed for food. People in the poorer countries could no longer afford corn and corn products that they eat. Tortillas come to mind as well as other flat breads used in those poorer nations.

Some countries are destroying large tracts of rainforest to raise palm nut trees for their use in making ethanol. It is a growing problem for all who want to save those dwindling forests.

Ethanol is another rushed into project without thoroughly understanding the consequences of its adoption. This is an idea that has brought more problems than solutions.

Wind Farms:

Wind farms are a real possibility for a small percentage of our electrical needs. But again, the environment suffers. In those places where there is enough wind constant to harvest, roads have to be built to accommodate the truck traffic to maintain them. And we will still need conventional or nuclear power plants to provide the rest of our needs.

Petroleum:

Gasoline is still the preferred fuel for powering the automobile. Gasoline has been getting cleaner and issue far fewer pollutants than it used to. There was a time when you could not see the skyline of Los Angeles for the smog. But science has corrected most exhaust emissions that were causing the 'smog' problem.

Catalytic converters also help with the cleanup of emissions and the prospects for even cleaner burning gasoline are bright. Here again, the environmentalists do not want to correct the problems remaining with gasoline, they want to get rid of it. No don't fix it, and maintain good cheap reliable energy, they want to throw it all away for the pie in the sky proposals. Sometimes I think that the left just resents the oil industry. Few of the rabid anti petroleum advocates have any idea of the progress made in the drilling, refining, and distribution of petroleum products. It is a very narrow view for a person to take if all he/she can see is the Exxon Valdez accident.

Conclusion:

I am not against doing real environmental cleanup. I just want the proponents of these ideas to fully understand their proposals and the problems that they create. Less emotion and more thought into these proposals would help with those unintended consequences. I am tired of every special interest trying to push their whiz-bang idea on the country in the name of saving the planet with results that do more harm than good because of a lack of forethought.

Following the money, and who stands to gain from these ideas is a good place to start. Thoroughly and publically educating the public on all aspects of a proposal, not just the high points, would be helpful. Turning any of these hair-brained schemes into reality without a close inspection is dangerous.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Worrying About CO2

Some of you better informed people will have to help me with this one. It has been hard to get answers from usually good web sources. All the squawking is about 'Green Energy' and how it will save us from those dreaded greenhouse gases.

Listening to T. Boone Pickens this morning, it was clear that he believes that oil will return to around one-hundred dollars a barrel by the end of the year. The 'Greens' want the price of oil to rise substantially to prevent having to use it more than necessary. But is their worry about our CO2 usage justified or just political maneuvering.

A Look at CO2

Like anyone who wants to write about a subject, I did a lot of research from the best sources possible. One of the sites that I used data from was the charts from the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. You can see the CO2 increases from 1979 -Jan 2009 by going to this website.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

Make no mistake; the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. But when you dig a little deeper into the data, certain trends become evident. The rate of CO2 increase has been slowing slightly for the past 4 years.

Without cherry-picking the data, I took the most recent entry - January 2009 and the three preceding months. I averaged these four months since 2004. The results are as follows.

Months Oct, Nov, Dec, and January averages:

Year--------------Four Mo. Average -----Increase Over previous Year

2008-2009-------384.88 ppm------------1.7 ppm

2007-2008-------383.18 ppm------------2.19 ppm

2006-2007-------380.99 ppm------------1.8 ppm

2005-2006-------379.175 ppm-----------2.535 ppm

2004-2005-------376.64 ppm

Note: ppm = parts per million

The difference between the 2004/2005 to 2005/2006 was the most notable increase with 2.535 ppm. When we scrutinize the data, one has to conclude that he growth rate is decreasing. If you visit the website above, you can make your own determinations about CO2 growth.

CO2 growth rate changes are not new. These changes in the growth rate coincide nicely with the solar cycle. The growth rate slows a little during the periods when the Suns activity is at a minimum. At the present, the Sun is in an extended Minimum period. The expected increase in Sunspot activity has not started yet.

CO2 Graph Click to Enlarge



Notice how the CO2 growth rate dips slightly at each of the minimum periods of the 11-year solar cycle. The next graph is a comparison of several of the last solar cycles. Pay particular attention to the greater magnitude of cycle 17, 20, and 23. Those increases in the magnetic storms (Sunspots) cause about a 1% gain in irradiance from the Sun during the maximum part of the cycle. Most cyclic minimums do not last long enough to change the Earth's climate very much but the increase in the magnitude of the cycles as shown by the graph has meaningful effects.

Comparison of Late Solar Cycles:
Click to Enlarge


The past several cycles have shown an increase in the Sun's activities. As a result, over time, the oceans of the Earth have responded by warming. Why is that important? The Oceans act as a buffer against sudden climate changes on Earth. It takes years to warm them up and years to cool them down. The reluctance of the oceans to change abruptly means that our climate remains decently steady. But there are consequences to the oceans cooling as well as warming.

As the oceans warm, they release more CO2 into the atmosphere, and conversely, cooler oceans absorb more CO2. That means that the CO2 corollary to global warming is just the reverse of what we are told. CO2 has been increasing because of the warming of the Oceans, not the other way around. Since 2007, the Oceans have been cooling. There has been less radiance from the Sun during this minimum part of the solar cycle, and the oceans have reacted by cooling. The following Sea Surface Temperature maps will demonstrate that the oceans of the world are in a cooling phase. Ocean cooling is a gradual process but non-the-less, cooling is cooling.

Sea Surface Temperatures Jan-2001
Click to Enlarge


Sea Surface Temperatures Jan-2007
Click to Enlarge


Sea Surface Temperatures Jan-2009
Click to Enlarge



2001 and 2009 match up very evenly while 2007 is obviously the warmest. The most severe Arctic recorded ice-melting period was in 2007. The year 2007 represented the highest loss of Arctic ice in our records. But the trend of ocean warming has ended and we are now in a cooling period as the sea surface temperature maps demonstrate. The warming oceans caused measurable problems noted in the oceans coral reefs, sea-ice melting, and an added violence to the large storms that generate over the oceans. Some of this telltale activity may continue, although with a decrease in magnitude if the oceans continue to cool. The fly in the soup is whether the Sun will maintain its current state. The prediction is that the normal cyclical nature of magnetic storms on the Sun will resume in the near future, but that is only a prediction. Historically we know that the Sun enters long periods of low activity. The last extended low activity period, known as the little ice age, or the Maunder-Minimum occurred from 1645-1715.

The theory is that the cyclical nature of solar activity is caused by the Suns motion with respect to the barycenter of the solar system. The barycenter is the theoretical center of mass for the solar system with the Sun at its center. However, the gravitational pull of the orbiting planets causes the Sun to wobble slightly as the planets rotate around it. The 11-year solar cycle coincides very well with the planet Jupiter. Jupiter takes just over 11 years to circumnavigate the Sun and the Jupiter tidal effect on the Sun probably most certainly influences the magnetic pole shift as well as the sunspot activity (which are magnetic storms).

There is one more celestial event that is worth mentioning, and that is the 'solar jerk'. The 'solar jerk' is the changing of the Suns position with respect to the center of gravity of the solar system. When all of the planets are aligned on the same side, their combined gravitational pull is thought to be able to shift the solar system center of gravity outside of the photosphere of the Sun. Whereas if Jupiter is on the opposite side of the Sun with respect for the rest of the planets, the solar system center of gravity is contained within the photosphere of the Sun. These particular alignments are cyclical and happen less frequently than the normal ebb and flow of the solar cycle. The effect of the 'solar jerk' on the Earth's climate is a subject of much debate among scientists.

Those who predict what the near future of Earth's climate differ dramatically. However, they generally agree that if the solar activity stays low (decrease in irradiance to Earth) that more cooling is probable.

Back to CO2:

I can safely state that the CO2 increases seen at the present come largely from the warming of the oceans. All of man's endeavors only result in about 3% of the increase of CO2. Further, CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it absorbs some portions of the infrared spectrum. But CO2 is also shown to release that energy very quickly through the process of convection. The concentration of CO2 on Earth is very tiny, measured in parts per million. It makes up less than 1% of our atmosphere.

The Earth also has the advantage of not having a layered atmosphere. Our atmosphere is homogeneous because it stays mixed by the wind and convection currents. Warm updrafts lift the hot air to the cooler upper atmosphere releasing heat. When you look up into the sky and see clouds, you know that the process is working. Clouds form when rising warm moist air condenses in the cooler atmosphere.

Venus is not so lucky. They have an atmosphere that is almost all CO2. Venus has a forty plus mile high column of CO2 that blankets the planet. CO2 is heavier than water, so the atmosphere is almost a soup with very little opportunity to lose the stored heat by the convection process. So Venus is a very warm planet. Compounding the problems on Venus is the length of its day. The day on Venus is actually longer than its solar year. There is not much temperature diversity on Venus for wind creation; also, the slow rotation of the planet contributes to this. Venus is a sad situation because with today's technology, man's survival or exploration of the planet is next to impossible.

What we can expect on Earth if the ocean temperatures continue to decline is the levels of atmospheric CO2 declining. The cooling oceans will absorb more of the atmospheric CO2. One last note on CO2 is the amount of biology that we are taking from the oceans. All life is carbon based, and when we take a lot its biology from the oceans by fishing, whaling, and other ocean harvesting, the carbon that is contained within that biology releases into the atmosphere. Kelp, fish, mollusks, and whales that we harvest from the oceans all contribute to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Cheers,

-Robert-

One Trick Pony

Money put into the pockets of people who want to better themselves is an investment that will bear fruit. However, money put into the hands of those who are satisfied with their status quo will just squander it.

Poor people are poor for only a few reasons, but the majority of the poor are in that status because they choose to be. The poor I am talking about never get beyond a minimum pay job at the best, and survive on welfare and handouts at the least. Low achievers are fully equipped with the 'wants', but never put forth the effort to realize their dreams. Whenever they have money, it flows from their hands like water through a tea strainer.

Please don't confuse those poor with the low wage earner just starting out in entry-level job positions or those who are having setbacks due to divorce, or suddenly find that medical expenses have cost them all of their savings. This category of low-income earners will either get the help they need or learn and go on to advance in life. These groups of poor whether just starting out at entry level jobs or down on their luck will find a way to progress. The first group will not.

The majority of our poor fall into the first category. This group of poor, for reasons known only to them, cannot and will not achieve independence.

That is why I call them a 'one trick pony'. They don't look beyond today and will spend the money given to them by the Government, but when the money ceases to come into their hands, they will not have advanced from where they were in the beginning. This class of poor will remain on welfare because they haven't the desire or motivation to move up the ladder. Please don't get me wrong; I am not against welfare and helping the poor, just against putting a lot of taxpayer dollars in the hands of this group of poor with any expectation that they will make the economy better. Everyone will know that the stimulus money is only temporary and not something that you would rely on for the long haul.

Bottom-up economics works that way. The philosophy goes that if you put money into the bottom, they will spend it, and the money will trickle up the food chain. The Government will then tax those businesses and the people who are the benefactors of the spending, and return it to the poor. It is a crazy scheme, but in practice, it isn't successful. First and foremost is the problem of motivation. When the Government over taxes, and steals the reward from those who establish a business, they have defeated their own purpose. There is little reason for the sacrifice and dedication to keep a business open if you can't enjoy the fruits of your labor.

That is the catch-22 of bottom up economics. The result is a mathematical certainty that the Government will have to nationalize everything to meet its obligations. But due to the gross inefficiency of Government run economies, they never work for very long. Normal, well-motivated people become discouraged. The loss of incentive drives people into the bottom classes because of the handouts from the Government. Think about it, not everybody can be the beneficiary of Government largess. Somebody has to have their shoulder to the wheel and producing. This is what happened in the old Soviet Union. Other than their military, most Russians were more like the people in the third world than those of an affluent country.

You Liberals need to pay attention. You are driving the United States off of a cliff from which we may not recover. You need to buy into the idea that life is supposed to be a challenge. Working to overcome life's obstacles is the source of real satisfaction. Everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed. A person weak in motivation is a person weak in motivation. The general rule is that this person, without forcing him, will never achieve. According to Obama, our welfare system will no longer try to motivate the recipients. We can't win with policies like that.

It doesn't matter what your money or income situation happens to be, you have challenges. The winners are those who are able to put their challenges behind them, and not hold them out as a reason for needing a handout.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Staying Challenged

As strange as it may seem, Humans do their best when challenged. As life's challenges decrease, self-indulgence increases.

Self-indulgence itself poses a challenge to avoid. It denigrates one's character, and narrows a person's perspective into one of selfishness. At its zenith, self-indulgence destroys the underpinnings of the society which spawned it.

Unless a society has a focus on some challenge to keep it unified, the unity breaks down into local concerns. These local concerns can be strong enough to rip apart the whole.

Our society is broken down into two main groups. On one side are those less motivated who achieve little, and on the other side are the people who are motivated to achieve. My father used to tell me that there are two kinds of people, 'doers', and 'dreamers'.

Achievement groups subdivide into smaller groups. The following listing illustrates this hierarchy from the bottom to the top.

1.) Dependency Class: The bottom achievers include those on welfare that perpetually depend on the mercy of the higher achievers, and the generosity of others.

2.) Minimum Wage Earners: -Clerks, fast food, day laborers etc. (Those who never advance beyond entry-level positions.)

3.) High Risk: Those who work low skill, but in higher paying jobs that carry significant personal risk such as a miner or fireman.

4.) Trades' People: The trades' people are those who have acquired skills they can market such as electricians, carpenters, healthcare workers, plumbers, and air-conditioner repairmen. This is certainly not a complete list, but enough to give flavor to the statement.

5.) Professional: This group belongs to college graduates. They answer only to those who are higher achievers than they are. This group includes the engineers, doctors, lawyers etc.

6.) Business Entrepreneur: This highly motivated self-starter creates and manages business. This person can be from any educational level.

7.) Power Seekers: This is the last group. It includes our politicians and those who are never satisfied with what they have. The power seekers drive themselves to want more.

Of the seven groups mentioned above, the first four make up the vast majority of Americans. Those seeking power exploit these groups to gain political power. After all, in a majority rule society, numbers of supporters translate into power.

This piece will confine itself to the power seekers. The largest two power seekers in our society are the Liberals and the Conservatives. The liberals seek power by redistributing from the higher achievers to the lower achievers. Liberalism is attractive to lower achievers because their vote is the only cost to them. By giving their political support, they can have things without all of the effort of earning them. Their support is like feeding chickens, just toss out a few grains and they will keep clucking and being happy. But since every coin has two edges, there is another side to this story,

The Conservative power seekers seek power by motivating those who achieve less. Those who do get motivated to succeed become loyal devotees to Conservatism. By any stretch, it is the harder sell to the masses. The main weapon in the fight for Conservative followers is by rewarding achievement. Life is meant to have challenges, and those who manage to fight off adversity and achieve, find a pride that is absent in the ranks of those who achieve less. It is an abrasive rub to Conservatives when Liberal power seekers take what they have achieved and give it away to those who have not earned it. Conservatives deeply believe that everyone should be able to pursue and have equal opportunity for happiness, and overcoming life's challenges produces real happiness. Conservatives also believe that receiving undeserved benefits from politicians does not lead to happiness.

The destruction of so many of life's challenges by Liberals hurt our society. Many adherents to the Liberal cause feel strongly about helping those who are needy. I recognize that everybody who feels for the poor are not political hacks. Where we differ is the way that we choose to help the poor. Handouts do nothing but create a dependency that is difficult to overcome, even by those who want to break the cycle of poverty. Certainly, nobody should starve or have no shelter when the weather turns bad. But, believe it or not, personal discomfort is a great motivator.

There is nothing like having to scrounge around the private shelters and soup kitchens to make a person realize that there might be a better way. Those people who like living under underpasses and pushing grocery carts with all of their worldly possessions around probably will need those charitable organizations all their life. But among those down on their luck, some will find the bottom rung of society rough enough to motivate them to do better.

The danger with over helping is getting a lot of people stuck in the welfare system. Those who are stuck in that system get just enough to get by. They get used to having 'just enough' and do not try and change their status quo. Liberals who buy their votes with a continuous trickle of doo-dads and goodies harvested from those who are meeting life's challenges make it even harder for the poor to escape this vicious poverty trap.

My gripe against Liberal power seekers is that they have no conscience. They fully realize that their policies steal the desire for self-reliance. To the Liberal Politician, it is all for political power to have large numbers of people look to them for their sustenance. The sad truth is that they could care diddlysquat about the misery that they inflict upon those people. No, not the rank and file of the Democratic Party. The rank and file has no understanding of the misery that their Party is causing because they are the true believers in the Government helping the poor and using the power of the Government to control the wealth of the achievers.

Remember, underlying our society is the danger of self-indulgence. When we as a people are relatively at peace, without National challenges, we turn inward. We have to invent reasons for our existence. What we find that occupies our time and thinking to challenge our existence is not a unified structure. We rally around those groups that pique our interest and stir our passions. Some work to eradicate poverty, some want to make life happier for everybody. And some just want to use those passions to build a political base of power.

Christianity used to be one of our unifiers, but not anymore. Our esteemed preachers have jumped onto the millionaire bandwagon and become mega-rich television heroes. Yes, as a banner carrier, Christianity is only a shadow of its former self. There is no escaping the hue and cry for money, even in small town churches. Attending a service is like going to a board of directors meeting. You have to hear about the building fund, the orphanage fund, the missionary fund, the alms box for the poor, and the preacher needs a new car. Nowhere in this society can you find refuge from those who have their hand out.

My email box is crowded daily with solicitations from political parties, politicians and PAC's. Why would I want to donate to any of them? Over the past two decades, they have taken a substantial bite out of the freedoms that we once had. The only thing that matters to these power seekers is your vote and your money. The email solicitations don't even allow you to make a comment. That is because they really don't give a hoot about what you might be thinking, they just want your contribution. I say a pox on all their houses.

You can be sure that things will only get worse. We can't spend our way to Nirvana with money we don't have. If we sell all of this debt to foreign investors, they will become our owners. If we print the money, it will devalue what we already have. It is a fine kettle of fish to be in.

We have a President - not raised in this country during his formative years, so he thinks like a foreigner. His education, given to him because of his minority and foreign status was a gift from the American people. And now, with very little real experience, he portends to lead us into the promised land of indebtedness.

For all of you Obama lovers, not to worry, I am an equal opportunity political basher. The Republicans nominated a weak candidate who espoused no reason to vote for him. At a time when the country was crying out for leadership, Obama was able to articulate his vision. At least he believed in the power of Government and convinced a majority of the voters of his vision. Whether you agree or disagree with the job Obama is doing, he is staying true to his Liberal philosophy. The Republicans cannot claim that they have remained true to their ideals of smaller Government.

The National fracture is perpetuating because of a lack of inspiration, National purpose, and lack of personal accountability. We are so laid back that we have no National purpose other than worrying about our next electronic toy, computer game or saving the polar bears. As long as somebody else says, "They will solve our problems!" and it doesn't interfere with our daily do nothing lives, we just say, "Go ahead!" We could care less about any thoughts deeper than looking for a lost TV remote.

Absent a National purpose, we will continue to fragment into an unrecognizable Nation. A Civil War is not out of the question. Feelings run deep for the philosophical mantras we have adopted. Each side proclaims that they are right. Already, just associating with those who don't believe the way you do is uncomfortable.

I only wish I could articulate a light at the end of the tunnel. I cannot, because I only see darkness. If we don't find a National purpose soon, there may never be a light.

Cheers - I think-,

-Robert-

No Help From Federal Workers

Over the past few months, the Federal Government has added substantially to its payroll. Recent statistics were unavailable regarding the exact numbers for 2008, but the Federal Labor Union enrollment is burgeoning. Why is this important? Federal employees do not help with the tax burden shared by the rest of us. They do not contribute one dime to the treasury. 100% of their earnings is from the treasury and by definition cannot contribute to it. Federal workers will point to their paystubs that show a deduction for taxes, but make no mistake about it, that deduction means just a little less taken from the treasury for pay. They do not add to the treasury.

Every added employee to the Federal payroll means one less person that is shouldering the load with the rest of us. By December of 2007 there were 2,462,127 full time civilian federal employees. Of course, some of them are necessary, but as our government grows, so does the burden on the non-government employees. The non-government employees put money into the treasury, not the federal employees. It is not partisan politics, but simple math; growing the government means that the government needs to take in more money from fewer people.

Surprisingly, the Postal Service hires more civilians than the military. But the Military budget out strips everybody, consuming 4.1% of GDP. But when the military is included as Federal Employees, the total of government employees comes to 3,906,680. That’s a lot of people living off of the taxpaying private sector.

Please note, I am not making any judgments about what is and is not needed. These are only numbers to demonstrate the folly of increasing the size of our government in relation to the jobs available in the private sector. It is a mathematical certainty that as public civilian employment rises, so will the demands on a shrinking taxpayer base. The real problems will start when the private sector will no longer be able to keep up with the public sector demands. If we tax our private sector too hard, the whole system will collapse. We as a nation need business owners and the wealth creators to thrive for the sake of the rest of us. The quest for rewards drives our economy. Remove life's rewards with taxation and we lose the incentive that creates economic activity. Already, high taxes have been instrumental in ruining our manufacturing base. Businessmen have been forced to take their businesses to foreign countries. You can guess who has to shoulder the expense of losing good paying jobs.

As quoted from Ronald Reagan, "The Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

As I write this piece, the obscene recovery package is before the Senate. It is for so much money that just to imagine a trillion dollars boggles the mind. If you were to count 24 hours a day, it would take you better than 30,000 years to count to a trillion. Government projects will not provide a lasting recovery. Yes, there will be a burst of activity around each project, but when the money runs out, that activity will cease. The saddest part about it is that we do not have the money. We will have either to borrow it or just print it. We devalue our money when goods and services do not follow the money supply. The devaluation of our money is called 'inflation'.


Scary Stuff,
Check out what the rest of us are having to support with our taxes.

Cheers,

-Robert-

The Military:
Active personnel 1,444,553 (ranked 2nd)
Reserve personnel 1,458,500
Expenditures Budget $583 billion (FY08)(ranked 1st)
Percent of GDP 4.04 (2007 est.)

Federal Civilian Employment:
http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/apes/07fedfun.pdf
Click to Enlarge