BUDGET CUTS AND OTHER FAIRY TALES You will hear (if you haven't already) the Administration screaming about Congressional budget cuts. Please understand that in Washington there is no such thing, as you and I would interpret the word "cut." Washington uses a system known as Baseline Budgeting, which essentially means that they ask for the tax money they got last year plus 10 to 13%. If anyone threatens to give them less than the expected amount, they scream about "savage cuts," even if they receive an actual increase. Don't you wish that you in private life could do that? Remember this when you hear of Budget Cuts. Even the "evil, isolationist" Republicans have not managed to cut the budget. If not for a healthy economy, the excessive spending of the Federal Government would have increased the deficit significantly. Additionally, the surplus created by taking in more Social Security funds than are being paid out is used to make it look as though the budget is in balance. Ask your Congressional Representatives about this situation, and see what they have to say. Gerrold T. Adler 10-20-99

IT'S ALWAYS THE MONEY Elizabeth Dole's withdrawal from the election campaign for lack of money has brought forth another chorus of cries for campaign reform. While it is unfortunate that the costs of campaigning limit the field, this has long been the case. The cost of TV ads, which can reach the masses with memorable messages, really ups the ante, particularly in the General Election. I do not wish to see TV networks forced to give candidates free air time. That would be the same as telling you or your company to pay the costs. The Tax return check-off to help fund campaigns is not working very well, according to reports. The Democrats (and Senator McCain) are screaming about "soft" money, although it is likely that they use it in their own campaigns. That is money given to the Parties for use in campaigning. It is not limited in amount as are contributions to individual campaigns. Presently the Republicans are raising more in "soft" money than the Democrats, and that is why the Dems are screaming. They had to give back buckets of money collected in the 1996 General Election, because it was contributed illegally (some from Communist China). You will not hear Dems complaining about money contributed by labor unions, since most of it goes to them. Is it any less "corrupting" than money donated to parties by private citizens or corporations? There is no ready solution to this problem if we are to have a Nation with the rights of free speech and representation set forth in the Constitution, but one step would help, and some candidates do it now: list every contributor and the amount given on a website. The Parties could do this too. An informed electorate could then decide which side best represents them. Not all have access to the internet, you say? The figures would be on the news wires immediately. The electorate would probably be surprised to find that some give to both parties and more than one candidate. A last thought: whenever someone says, "It's not about the money" - it IS. Gerrold T. Adler 10-21-99

EXPORTING YOUR JOB The high-tech companies are trying once again to get the Government to increase the number of special work visas. This happened not long ago, and the largely computer-related industry is trying once more. Their complaint is that there are not enough qualified workers in the U.S., and that they must seek workers from third-world countries. I am no fan of our system of public education, particularly in the last 30 years, but I question whether the high-tech employers would rather take a young computer worker from India than a 40-year old laid-off computer worker from the U.S. My guess is that the U.S. worker might expect a more reasonable wage than a youngster who had fortunately escaped the streets of Calcutta. The businessman is, of course, concerned with net profit and will do what he can to maximize it. While I disapprove of the heavy hand of Government in business, I do not wish it to assist in exporting the jobs of you or your children. It is bad enough that the "globalists" say that immigrants are only doing jobs that our citizens won't do. Computer jobs are not stoop labor. Gerrold T. Adler 10-25-99

TAXES CHANGE THE MARKET October 28, 1999 George Will has written an excellent article in today's Washington Post. It discusses a tax break for wealthy yacht buyers sponsored by (gasp) a Kennedy - Patrick Kennedy, Congressman of Rhode Island (need I say Democrat?). Few feel very sorry for folks who have to pay a luxury tax on yachts costing over $100,000, and when the tax was instituted in 1990, it was thought by many to be "fair." The bureaucrats salivated over the increased revenue from the luxury tax, but it did not come. It did not dawn on the politicians and bureaucrats that people might stop buying the "luxury" items or buy them overseas, but that is exacty what they did, and the yacht and aircraft industries took a significant hit. All it took for internet cigarette sales to shoot through the roof was the 50 cent a pack tax resulting from Proposition 10 (its proposed repeal will be on the March ballot). Black market sales from adjacent states are probably booming in certain areas. People do not like to pay taxes, particularly if they do not feel that the taxes are warranted. They will do innovative things to avoid paying them. Representative Kennedy's belated concern is for the yacht builders of his state. Congress should carefully consider the possible results before legislating new taxes. I'm not holding my breath. Gerrold T. Adler

BANNING ATM SURCHARGES November 18, 1999 Suppose a group of people requested to use your restroom when they were in your neighborhood. Let's say that you did not really want them to use your restroom, since they had their own, but that you decided that you would let them use it, provided that they paid $1.50, or whatever charge you established. Then suppose that a movement started in such liberal bastions as New York City and San Francisco to force you to let these non-members of your family use your restroom. This example seems off-the-wall, but it is nearly an exact analogy to what the ATM-charge-ban backers are trying to do. It is easy to make banks look like the "bad guys" in this story, but put yourself in their place by re-reading the first two paragraphs. I have an ATM card and use it frequently. I do not pay surcharges because I use my bank's ATM's. Easy, isn't it? I recently travelled out of state,but my bank is there. If it weren't, and I had to use another bank, I would pay the surcharge if I were desparate for the money. I would be ashamed of myself if that were to happen. The Supreme Court may eventually hear one of these anti-ATM surcharge suits, and I am confident that they will decide that the Government cannot exercise such a control over civil commerce. For the whiners: Use your own bank's ATMs. That's the idea. Gerrold T. Adler

LET'S END THIS WAR November 24, 1999 We are conducting a war which has virtually destroyed the governments of several countries and threatens to destroy our Constitutional rights. By ending this war we could reduce crime in our hemisphere, not to mention on our streets. Ending the war in the manner I propose did not come to me in a flash of inspiration (as a Zen satori). I had heard it suggested for years, but I did not wish to believe that this was the road that should be taken. This war is costing our Government (read your and my tax money) so much that estimates vary by billions of dollars per year. It is never enough. Navy ships and aircraft, perhaps even submarines and certainly Special Warfare assets are involved. Their costs are only estimated. Human lives are lost, as they are in all wars, but is this one worth the cost? I am speaking of the War on Drugs. It is a war which has corrupted the governments of several Central American countries and changed the justice system in ours. Ever heard of Asset Forfeiture? Innocent people have been killed and maimed by our own law enforcement authorities which hoped to take their homes and other property through this perversion of the law. Gangs of all stripes deal in drugs, and because of the huge profits involved, they can afford to equip themselves at least as well as the law enforcement authorities opposing them (a reason given to justify asset forfeiture). Why are there such huge profits? Because the drugs are ILLEGAL. Legalize them and put them under government control (an admittedly bad solution) and the profit motive disappears. No one wants to hear this, but it can work. Will we become a nation of zombies if drugs are legalized? I doubt it. Those who will use illegal drugs are using them now. They are also contributing to drive-by shootings involving gang turf. Why is turf important? It's their drug sales market. The mechanics of distribution will have to be worked out. The important thing to realize is that we must legalize the drugs and end the war. GerroldT. Adler

IT'S YOUR MONEY December 5, 1999 A few days ago I heard a Democrat politician say that the Republicans wanted to waste the budget surplus by giving us a tax cut. The yiddish word chutzpah is often used to describe this sort of remark. It means, approximately, unmitigated gall. If you believe that a budget surplus is not related to our paying too much in taxes, I would like to know what you believe to be the source of Government funds. Yes, the Government borrows money, in the form of Treasury bonds, notes, and bills, but taxes make up most of Uncle Sam's income. Social Security's taxes(FICA) are included in the General fund to make it appear that the budget is in better shape than it actually is, but this year it was close to being in good shape because of the economy. A lot of "pork barrel" items in the budget didn't help, but that's another story. Lowering taxes and allowing the public to hold onto (and spend if it likes) more of its own money can be good for the economy. When you hear politicians say that they cannot "afford" to give you a tax reduction it means that they wish to give your money to someone else. Find out why and do not vote for those who make such statements. Gerrold T. Adler

FORGET "DON'T ASK - DON'T TELL" - DON'T JOIN December 24, 1999 You have probably seen the news that the Clintons and VP Al Gore have backed away from their policy with respect to homosexuals serving in the military. They blame the military leadership, indirectly, for not carrying out the policy which Clinton agreed to when the Generals and Admirals told him that homosexuals simply could not serve openly in the military. I served in the military from 1959 to 1980 and in military school for three years before that. I served in many ships and knew many young people. There was no tolerance for homosexuals and very little for effeminate "straight" men. Such people detract from small unit cohesion and morale. You may not like to hear this, but it is what is referred to in the military as the "straight skinny." Young men (and the military is comprised mainly of young men) do not trust other men who might see them as desirable sexually. If you have not served in the military, it is doubtful that you have lived in as close a proximity to others of your sex for months at a time. It can be stressful. I can not speak for women in the military regarding how they feel about lesbians in their barracks, officer's quarters or berthing areas aboard ship, but I feel certain that many are bothered by them. The "don't ask - don't tell" policy basically said that the military would wink and nod as long as the homosexual service member did not openly admit to being homosexual. That was not enough for the activists, and many decided that being open was more important than a military career. There is no excuse for violence against any military person for any reason, but the military is not a place for homosexuals for the reasons I have stated. No amount of social engineering can change the nature of young men, and some will be violent in response to homosexuals. The military's duty is to defend the country using force, if necessary. Its members should be trained to do that. Hour after hour of "sensitivity" training does not augment that capability. Again, it is unlikely to change eiher attitdes or behavior. Gerrold T. Adler

MCCAIN THE WARRIOR January 5, 2000 I wanted to like Senator McCain. He and I were both Navy officers. He was commissioned a year before I was. We were both Viet Nam veterans. He was an aviator; I wasn't. His father was an Admiral; mine drove a truck. We still shared a career, and when I learned of him I felt a bond. I didn't know McCain or know of him until he was shot down and captured. He would not have drawn extra interest except, as I said, his father was an Admiral. In 1972, when I served a few months in the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, I saw messages every day from Admiral McCain, who was then the Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Forces in the Pacific, probably the most important job in the military at the time. Each time I saw the Admiral's name I was reminded that his son was being held captive by our enemy in North Viet Nam. That situation must have been incredibly difficult for both of them. The younger McCain remained a respected veteran in my mind until he and then-Senator Dole decided to take the lead (right behind Clinton) in sending U.S. troops to Bosnia. We have been fortunate that not many troops have been lost in Bosnia, but the Balkans are now, and probably always will be, a seething cauldron of ethnic hatreds. They are Europe's problem and should not involve U.S. forces. Then John McCain tried to involve U.S. ground forces in Kosovo before the cessation (temporary) of hostilities. Kosovo has not settled down. Now McCain wishes to sanction Russia for what that country feels is an internal problem. I do not wish to see people slaughtered in the former Soviet Union, but that country controls (hopefully) 3,000 or so nuclear warheads, any one of which could destroy or decimate the city of your choice. Threatening Russia is risky, to say the least. We need to control the impulse of old men to send young men to bleed and die for nebulous or outright futile causes. I do not think Senator McCain has such control. Gerrold T. Adler

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY? January 22, 2000 The media are having a fit because Hillary Clinton was asked questions that should have been "out of bounds" on the grounds that they were too personal. Of special concern is that asked by a Buffalo, NY, radio talk show guy (whose days on the air are probably numbered). This fellow had the temerity to ask if Mrs. Clinton had ever been unfaithful to her husband, particularly with respect to the rumors about Hillary and the late Vince Foster. Lest we forget, the same questions were asked of her husband in 1992 concerning Gennifer Flowers. Hillary bravely helped to cover up that one (It was true - there was an affair, according to the president's later testimony). Presidential hopeful Gary Hart, some years ago, was asked if he were fooling around, and he challenged the reporters to catch him. Bad move - they did, and her name, Donna Rice, became famous (for more than Warhol's 15 minutes, but not much). The point is that rumors of infidelity, some factual and others not, swirl around many male candidates, and questions are asked. It's not very polite to ask, but New York is not famous for politeness. One of the reasons that I would never consider running for office is that I already have a doctor with a long, gloved finger. Those who run for office must realize that there is no longer such a thing as a "private life," even if you are a woman. I believe it was Democrat Harry Truman who said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Makes sense to me. Gerrold T. Adler

	Powered by MSN TV	next page