A Real Trickle Up/Down Theory

It is a well known fact that college graduates make much more than high school graduates and logically one could state the college graduate pays more in taxes and contributes more to society and the economy than the college graduate. That is a statistical fact. Education is by far the most beneficial contribution the government makes--a contribution it benefits from as well as benefiting it citizens.

Some in the government claim that cutting taxes benefits it citizens by rewarding the wealthy for investing and that investing ultimately benefits citizens by providing jobs. Why not go further and educating its citizenry past high school by providing free college and University for anyone able to learn and attend school? This would provide more jobs in academia and provide society with a more educated populace; all of which would raise salaries and thus more tax revenues. Talk about trickle up/down!

It would also level the playing field between the haves and the have-nots, which is growing more apparent day by day.

Education is the best investment a Democracy can make.

Bush's Energy Plan A Scam?

On the surface Bush's energy plan, reducing energy consumption 20% in 10 years, is like every other venture he undertakes, is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

When you calculate energy consumption of oil, using 1.25 percent population growth as a criterion, consumption increases from 7 billion barrels a year to 7.932 billion barrels after ten years--using Bush's 10 years and 20 percent figures out to 8.4 billion barrels. The real "cut" in energy then is .468 billion barrels--a number which could disappear in rounding. Population "increases" exponentially and is calculated using the formula N=No x e ^rt where No=7 billion, e=2.17183, t=10 years, and r=1.25. It all seems impressive but other than not increasing consumption minimally by staying even with population growth the plan does nothing to cut back on energy use. But like all of Bush's plans, other than tax breaks for the rich, they end up getting lost in the bureaucracy.


Taking measures, such as we did in the 70's, would really do some good and would be a "plan" that would do some good. Of course this might stunt corporate growth, a real no-no to this administration.

What Possible Plan For Iraq?

One could hope that the Insurgents would just quit or somehow be talked into giving up, but the evidence of their sacrifices and zeal in taking on their opponents would tend to discount such hopes. So what other course or possibility is there? What possible plan would work?

First of all, as most insurgencies, unconventional warfare, guerrilla wars, etc. are fed and supplied by outside sources--Iran and Syria come to mind. Since they can't be held accountable overtly they must be dealt with indirectly and unconventionally. Communications between the insurgents and their benefactors must be cut. That takes a lot of man power and equipment as well as planning. The next step is controlling the populace. The British in Malaysia cordoned off the populace from the insurgents to starve out the insurgents. We attempted the same thing in Vietnam--not much help there, and Iraq is even more difficult. Boots on the ground and checkpoints only would work if there is a plan behind the strategy. There is too much movement allowed. Too much uncontrolled vehicular movement. Not enough intelligence on possible insurgents and their movements. People should be ID'd by tribal and religious affiliations, jobs or vocations, vehicles they own, work schedules, etc. ID's that can be called in and checked by computers. Long range movements by people should be monitored and passes given out. Strict curfews at night. Controlled access to cities and towns. This would restrict access to insurgents by making them try to enter by other routes. Areas should be cordoned off in some fashion and movement between each of the areas controlled by checking cargoes and people. Establish "no-man's land" areas surrouding cities, which would make it easier to spot infiltrators.

There is no easy or sure way of fighting an unconventional war. It takes huge amounts of resources and will--on both sides. The advantage in most cases lies with the natives for they have the most to gain. One might ask what does the U.S. hope to gain by "winning" in Iraq? Wouldn't it be easier to fight them over here than there? Where we have the advantage?

Iraq--Winning The War

The definition of "win" still hasn't been decided on yet we are still in Iraq trying to force a definition. A real win is not possible now that Iraq has some say in what goes on. To fight against an insurgency, civil strife, a guerrilla war is only possible if there is complete control over the populace. That is not the case now. The Iraqis have only limited control on the ground and the U.S. is limited in what it can do for it has to "respect" the government of Iraq's sovereignty.

The Iraqis themselves cannot be trusted because of infiltration of hostile elements in government, police, and the Iraqi military. Then you have all the outside influences--such as Syria, Iran, and others we wont mention. Then there is the historical context of insurgencies--the Vietnamese resisted outsiders for a thousand years to obtain their sovereignty.

We will have to leave at some point--win or not.

I am reminded of Vietnam--the same rhetoric is being used that was said then. Arguments about the dire consequences if we left then and now. The only difference between then and now is that we don't use Agent Orange--now it is "smart bombs".

We still don't understand how to fight guerrilla wars. We look to Generals for answers. They "know" how guerrilla wars have been fought in the past, but what you need is a guerrilla fighter to fight guerrillas. Someone who can think out of the box and anticipate where future threats will materialize from. Someone who is as secretive and as ruthless as the enemy, and above all someone who has the contacts and resources that can counter enemy forces. A tall order.

Immigration--White Man's Burden?

I use the term "White Man" to mean the average middle class American, which so far by numbers are of European descent.

Since immigrants today are of non-European descent, when you count those jumping our borders, the burden they represent falls on those who are supporting our government; namely the middle class American.

Those supporting immigration, in particular illegal immigrants, argue that immigration is good for America, that immigrants pay for the benefits they receive through taxes. As I have stated before there is no way taxes they pay reimburse Americans for all the services and wear and tear on our infrastructure. In fact spending money to find and return them to their countries would be cost effective; saving Americans many millions of dollars in services, as well as preserving our wages; wages needed for Americans to live on. I will repeat this--Americans would save themselves money by finding illegals in this country and sending them back. Enforcing our laws against employers who are hiring illegals and fining them would do much to solve the problem for enforcement would remove the attraction to the illegals and make it impossible for them to live here. Fining employers would help finance the operation, much more so than fining illegals $1,500, that is being proposed as part of the comprehensive immigration plan.

The plans being proposed now by our representatives and the Administration are farces. No one is putting forth a plan to solve the problem. What is being done is just another attack on the Middle Class in America. Unless Americans wise up and demand representation our government will limp along working behind our backs for their, or special interest, benefit.

For an example of what is going on harken back to 1986 to the Immigration Plan enacted as a "Comprehensive Immigration Plan" to bring out all the illegal immigrants, punish employers, and control the border. It didn't happen then, and it won't happen this time. It is one of many lies told to the American Public by lying politicians who have no interest in representing Americans.