Two Million More Reasons to Soak the Rich!

William Bonner, aka "Billy the Kid", was a loathsome scumball, one of the worst vermin to inhabit the West. Before he was gunned down (by Pat Garrett) he had one of several last photos taken about 130 years ago in which is called "tintype" today. The photos, slightly larger than modern baseball cards, should all have found their way into sewers or dumpsters by now, but one actually made its way to a Denver Auction.

There it was purchased....get this... for TWO MILLION DOLLARS! This sent waves of absolute revulsion through me, when I considered what that sum of money could otherwise have accomplished...how much good it could have done... as opposed to pissing it away for the 130-year old image of a rat. For example:

- Paid twenty secondary school teachers' salaries for two years

- Paid forty school librarians' salaries for 4 years (many school librarians are now being laid off across the nation as states come to grips with budget woes)

- Paid for health care, and needed (overdue) medical treatments for one thousand homelesss adults.

- Purchased six months worth of nutritious meals for 100 homeless kids.

- Enabled construction of a 40-room shelter for homeless families.


But what was the money used for? To purchase a little tintype photo of one of the worst villains of the Old West!

Later word has it that the purchaser was one of the billionaire Koch brothers. The same Koch brothers who use their other extra, excess monies to fund the Tea Party's exploits. (Though most Tea Baggers don't have clue one who's behind their agenda!)

It is now time, given that they have so much EXTRA, unneeded money to piss away, to tax the bastards to the hilt! That's why I now propose increasing the marginal tax rate at the top to what it was during the Eisenhower years: 91%. Also, bring back the estate taxes and put all kinds of provisos on them (i.e. no gifting beforehand to family members, trusts etc.) to ensure all gets paid to Uncle Sam.

Anytime a rich guy can just piss so much way discloses he has excess money, in fact more than he reasonable knows what to do with....or NEEDS. I make the same claim for the Koch bro that purchased the Billy the Kid photo, as I do for the other rich dude that paid $6 million (at an auction sponsored by Debbie Reynolds) for the dress Marilyn Monroe wore (when the subway draft blew it up around her waist) in 'Seven Year Itch' (1955) and the other character that tossed out $1.8 million for Michael Jackson's favorite jacket.

All this money wastage shows the rich have way too much...as well as time on their hands.

Of course, with the repukes in power, and now yammering incessantly to give the richest even BIGGER tax cuts (while they take Medicare from poor seniors and replace it with useless vouchers), we will have to expect even more obscene purchases that will only make normal humans wince at the chutzpah, arrogance and depraved flaunting. This is the Republicans' plan: to give each rich millionaire another Lexus each year in tax cut equivalents, and each billionaire enough to purchase a new Lear jet.....or maybe....the last photo ever taken of Adolf Hitler before heading into his Berlin bunker as the Russians approached.

I am sure the next billionaire who buys that will have much to share in common with the subject!

Introduction to Basic Physics (Electric Circuits) Pt. 21

In this instalment we begin the examination and investigation of simple electric circuits, starting with some basic rules and principles and very simple experiments to determine the resistance, R, in a circuit. There are two methods that can be used one I call "simple", otherwise known as the ammeter-voltmeter method, and the other which is more complex (shown in Fig. 1(b). The latter actual practical set up is also shown in Fig. 2.

Generally, at Harrison College, we employed the simple A-V method for the introductory physics students in the 3rd form (equivalent to the U.S. 9th grade) and used the Wheatstone Bridge method for the Upper fifth form (equivalent to the U.S. 12th grader, or HS senior). Thus, by the time the Barbadian physics student arrives at his senior year he's already been well exposed to simple electric circuits, and knows how to set up both series and parallel circuits (which we will see in the next instalment).

Some Basics:

1.Ohm's Law:

In effect, this is what the student is really seeking to show in the experiment:

I = V/R

where I is the current (in amperes) and V the voltage in volts, while R is the resistance in ohms. In terms of the units then:

Amperes (or 'amps') = Volts/ Ohms


2. Internal Resistance

Technically speaking, every battery, or source of emf (electro-motive force) also has an internal resistance, r. Thus, the theoretical emf (E-t) will always be larger than the actual, measured emf,E. And hence also, any terminal voltage in the circuit (call it V(ab)) will be less than E. Thus:

V(ab)= E - Ir

or, if an additional resistance R is connected:

E - Ir = IR, or

I = E / (R + r)


The fine points of (2) are usually not introduced until the upper fifth form.

3. Resistivity


This features prominently when lengths of resistance wire come into play and hence the resistance will change depending on the length. If rho denotes resistivity of a material, e.g. metal wire, and the wire is L feet long, then the resistance R (in ohms) is:

R = rho (L)/ A

where A is the cross-sectional area of the wire.

Again, (3) is a consideration usually left until the more advanced levels.

I. Ohm's Law by the Simple Method

The student is issued an ammeter (with letter I adjacent, for current) to measure the amperes, and a voltmeter (with E adjacent) to denote volts or emf at that point, and a set of 5 unknown or test resistors, as well as a battery or other emf source.

For each test resistor inserted, the student records the voltage and current in volts and amps, then obtains the resistance using:

R = E/ I = V/I

At the end of the experiment the student is given the actual resistor values which he must compare with the empirical or test values he found, and then estimate the percentage error for each.

II. Wheatstone Bridge Method:

This circuit is connected as shown in diagram Fig. 1(b). In this case, the unknown resistance R(x) is wired in as shown. The instrument denoted by (G) is a galvanometer. The known resistance is denoted R, and the student adjusts or moves a clip along a length of wire from A to B yielding different lengths L1 and L2. At specific points where 'C' is located on AB, the galvanometer will read 0 (N.B. the value R should be chosen before hand so that point C falls on the middle third of AB when G reads zero).

Practical example:

In performing the Ohm's law experiment (to find an unknown resistance R(x)) a student at Harrison College makes the following measurements:

Length AC = 35 cm

Length CB = 65 cm

R = 5 ohms

G = 0

Using this data, find the value of R(x):

Solution:

R(x) / R = (AC)/ (BC)

R(x)/ 5 ohms = 35/65 = 7/13

Therefore: R(x) = 5 ohms (7/13) = 2.7 ohms

Problems:

1) A 12 V battery has an internal resistance of 2 ohms. If it is connected in series with a voltmeter and another resistance R = 4 ohms, what would the voltmeter read? What would an ammeter read placed in the same circuit?

2) A Wheatstone Bridge circuit is connected as shown in Fig. 1(b). The galvanometer is found to read zero when point C is located exactly midway along a wire 1m in length (e.g. connecting A and B in the diagram). A known resistance coil R is used which is made of copper (rho = 1.72 x 10^-8 ohm-m) and is 50 m long, wound tightly in a coil.

a) If the cross sectional area A = πr^2 and r = 0.001m, find the value of R(x).

b) If a new resistor R made up of 100m length of the same copper wire is then used, then how must the lengths L1 and L2 change to achieve a galvanometer reading of zero?

Why Jason Lisle is wrong in his Solar Super-granulation Polarity finding

Jason Lisle, in his Ph.D. dissertation ('Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism'), makes the claim that by using Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) velocity data (from the SOHO spacecraft) in concert with local correlation tracking techniques, he was able to develop adequate "refinements" in the latter and thereby excavate enough signal to ascertain a "persistent N-S alignment" which is taken to be a polarity preference associated with the supergranules. As I intend to show, this conclusion is suspect and doesn't hold up when the foundational assumptions (and error techniques) are examined more closely.

One thing any solar researcher or worker ought to be able to relate to, and to concede, is the ever present trap of selection effects. These can often creep into an investigation even conducted with the best intents. As an example, in my (1980-86) investigations of the origin of SID flares associated with certain active regions, an early conclusion was that the most geo-effective (i.e. able to disrupt terrestrial communications, or cause the most intense sudden ionospheric disturbances) were associated with the most rapidly growing and magnetically complex sunspots. (Fig. 1). These were typically the largest delta -class spots with numerous magnetic polarity intrusions (e.g. one magnetic polarity intruding deeply into another causing large magnetic field gradients).

However, on performing a deeper analysis which included cross-referencing all SIDs to all optical flares (of all classes) appearing on all available H-alpha films (e.g. over all Carrington rotations in 1980) and validated via the x-ray signatures from the SMS-GOES satellite) it was found this was a premature conclusion. Indeed, contrary to the overall rubric that only large area, delta spot- populated ARs spawned powerful SIDs (and hence associated SID flares) I found that nearly 35% of all major SID flares (which generated the largest SID effects) were associated with optical subflares. (Solar Phys., Vol. 92, p. 259). In other words, the counter-intuitive finding was that just over one-third of the largest SID flares arose from the smallest energy optical flares (typically 10^21 J ). A test of the sampling errors using the coefficient of determination confirmed this.

I point this out because very early in his dissertation (p. 17), Lisle concedes an inability to properly resolve granules via his MDI data, though he does make an appeal to local correlation tracking (LCT) as a kind of savior since it allows motions to be deduced from the images even when individual moving elements aren't well resolved. (I.e. the granules are the individual elements or units of supergranules). The question that arises, of course, is whether the product of such LCT manipulation is real, or to put it another way, an objective physical feature that is not associated with instrumental effects, distortions or errors.

Exacerbating this suspicion is Lisle's own admission (ibid.) that LCT "suffers from a number of artifacts". One thing any worker in the field ought to know is that any time an artifact appears, however it does so, it's time to put on the warning radar. (Lisle evidently does this but as I will show, this isn't enough).In Lisle's case the warning is sounded by the emergence of a "large-scale, disk centered convergence anomaly". He notes this is due to a selection effect on granules and the anomaly can be mitigated by further treatment.

This is normally attainable, but again, removal of scale selection effects depends on the scale of the anomaly- especially in relation to the sought after signal. In my SID flare studies at a particular scale, it appeared that solar spicules in the vicinity of large, delta-spot penumbra were scenes of emergence of optical subflares that spawned major SIDs. But when all the incidents of these correlated spicules were assembled, then subjected to a Fourier analysis (and compared with velocity field and vector magnetogram data) the signal vanished. Evidently, aberrantly bright spicules (in the centerline) were erroneously recorded as optical subflares though they were nearly 10-15 x less in energy. (Correction could be made when the spectrum was observed in the wings, which disclosed darkness). In this sense, the anomaly manifested itself as a much diminished signature which appeared more energetic than the actually sought signal, while in Lisle's case, the anomaly was already much larger than the sought signal scale (by about ten times). In their Astrophysical Journal paper (Vol. 608, p. 1170), 'Persistent North-South Alignment of the Supergranulation', Lisle, Rast and Toomre assert that:

supergranular locations have a tendency to align along columns parallel to the solar rotation axis.... this alignment is more apparent in some data cubes than others

They also add: The alignment is not clearly seen in any single divergence image from the time series of this region (Figs. 1a–1b) but can be detected when all 192 images comprising that series are averaged

This also ought to have raised some suspicions as to whether it is really a spurious signal emerging in the series averages. For example, an averaging of SID-flare intensity data would show that the original (spurious) conclusion I gave above was the appropriate one, i.e. "only large area, delta spot- populated ARs spawned powerful SIDs (and hence asociated SID flares)"

Going back to the same Ap.J. paper, the authors write:

The anisotropy observed in the time-averaged image of Figure 1c is not a property of the individual supergranules but is instead due to a weak positional alignment, producing vertical striping with nearly the same horizontal length scale as the supergranulation itself.

The north-south alignment of the solar supergranulation is observed only after long temporal averages of the flow. After 8 days of averaging, the striping is quite strong, while shorter averaging times show the effect less well.

In Figure 3a, s[x], s[y] , and their ratio s[x]/s[y] are plotted as a function of averaging time. The plots show the average value obtained from two independent well-striped 15 deg x 15 deg equatorial subregions of the data set

In the above, s[x], s{y] refer to the rms or root mean square errors.

Now, the key link to the persistence of the "polarity" alignment as the authors put it:

" s[x]/s[y] shows a smooth transition from values near one at low averaging times to values exceeding 2.5 for the full time series. This increase reflects the slow decrease in x compared to y due to the underlying longitudinal alignment of the evolving flow. The random contributions of individual supergranules to s[x] or s[y] scale as 1/(Nl)^½, where Nl is the number of supergranular lifetimes spanned over the averaging period. Vertical striping of the average image emerges visually when the averaging time exceeds the supergranular lifetime by an amount sufficient to ensure that the contribution of the individual supergranules falls below that of the long-lived organized pattern. The slowly increasing value of s[x]/s[y] at very long averaging times suggests that the underlying organization is persistent in time, with a lifetime > or = 8 days.

The underscored segment above is critical, since Lisle in his dissertation refers to a "false flow" whenever his larger tile size includes more granules. In effect, an additional flow anomaly has been engendered because of the effects of including larger boxes (usually 5 pixels by 5 pixels) which have more granules. This is in addition to the large central convergence artifact. Which brings us to the use of the asymmetrical outcomes for the rms error ratio: s[x]/s[y] upon which the conclusion of persistence appears to rest, i.e. from the authors' foregoing description, which is also based on Lisle's dissertation - but which one is prevented from extensively quoting from (owing to copyright restrictions!) Hmmm...wonder why?

Anyway, the use of the error ratio s[x]/s[y] as a "rosetta stone" to uncover this "persistence" of pattern can't really be justified, and it's a pity that the referees of the Ap. J. paper didn't see this - but then my own original Solar Physics paper had to be referred to more capable statistics-trained referees because the first one couldn't handle it!

Without wishing to make this overly long, I refer readers to the excellent paper by James G. Booth and James P. Hobert ('Standard Errors of Prediction in Generalized Linear Mixed Models', appearing in The Journal of the American Statistical Association (Vol. 93, No. 441, March 1998, p. 262) in which it is noted that standard errors of prediction including use of rms errors, and ratios thereof are "clearly inappropriate in parametric models for non-normal responses". This certainly appears to apply to Lisle et al's polarity "model" given the presence of significant "false flows" and "large convergence artifacts" (the latter with 10 times the scale size of the sought signal). The authors meanwhile recommend instead a conditional mean-squared error of prediction which they then describe at great length. They assert that their methods allows for a "positive correction that accounts for the sampling variability of parameter estimates".

In Lisle et al's case, the parameters would include the propagation speed of supergranule alignments, after their s[x]/s[y] is replaced by the rubric offered by the J. Am. Stat. Soc. authors, including the computation of statistical moments (p. 266) to account for all anisotropies and other anomalies which appear.

Until this is done, it cannot be said that there exists any "persistent alignment" in the solar supergranulation! Sorry, boys...and Ap.J. refs, and editors!

Solutions to compound lens problems

Problems from Pt. 20:

(1) A telephoto lens consists of a converging lens of focal length 6 cm placed 4 cm in front of a diverging lens of focal length (-2.5 cm).

a) Do a graphical construction of the system showing where the image would be.
b) Compare the size of the image formed by this combination with the size of the image that would be formed by the positive lens alone.
-----------

Solutions:

a) The graphical constuction is shown in the accompanying diagram, showing the image is 10 cm from the optical axis of the diverging lens. If the negative (diverging ) lens had not been used then the image AB would have been formed at the principal focal plane of the +6 cm (converging) lens, 6 cm from it. However, the diverging lens decreases the convergence of the rays (left side) refracted by the converging lens and causes them to focus at A'B', 14 cm from the converging lens - and 10cm from the diverging lens, as shown.

b) The image AB that would have been formed by the converging lens alone is (6 cm - 4 cm) = 2 cm beyond the f = (-2.5 cm) lens and is taken as the virtual object for that lens. ThenL s1 = -2 cm, and:

1/s1' = 1/f - 1/s1 = 1/ (-2.5) - 1/(-2) = -1/2.5 + 1/2 = 1/10

Then: s1' = 10 cm

Thus, the final image A'B' is real and 10 cm beyond the divergin lens - as the graphical construction shows.

The linear magnification: M1 = (-s1'/ s1) = (10 cm/ 2 cm) = 5

and since, h'/h = 5, then h' = 5h so the image formed by the combination is 5x larger than that formed by the (+) lens alone.

2) The objective lens of an astronomical telescope has a focal length of 6 ft. The eyepiece has a focal length of 2 inches.

a) Find the angular magnification that the telescope will produce when used for distant objects.

b) A rule for observing extended astronomical objects, such as planets or nebulae, is that the telescope magnification should not exceed 60x per inch of objective aperture.
----

Solutions:

(a) M = F/ f(e) where F = 6' = 72" and f(e) = 2"

Then: M = 72"/ 2" = 36 x

(b) It is not possible to strictly assert the condition is met (since no aperture is provided) but given the long focal length (6') it is more likley the aperture is at least 6" so the condition is easily met. (60x per in. would be 360x. Even a 1" aperture would easily meet the condition, however.)


If the astronomical telescope of this problem is used to observe the planet Jupiter,is the condition met or not? If not, what focal length eyepiece is needed to get the maximum angular magnification?
---

Soln.

Assuming a 6" aperture to get 360x for Jupiter then we'd need: M= 360 and

f(e) = F/M = 72"/360 = 1/5"



3) The objective of a telescope has a focal length F = 30 in. When it is used for an object at a great distance, then the distance between the objective and eyepiece is 32 in. What is the angular magnification?

In this case, the focal length of the eyepiece f(e) = 32 in. - 30 in. = 2 in.

We have: M = F/ f(e) = 30 in./ 2 in. = 15 x

"Uncle Tom" Sowell - Another pie-eyed Economic Idiot!

I was enjoying my breakfast of freshly brewed coffee along with a fancy bear claw this morning, when all of a sudden I turned the page of our local rag to find another incompetent load of economic drivel from "Uncle Tom" Sowell staring at me. I nearly dropped my coffee all over the paper (which might have been better) on reading some of his moronic codswallop which shows he hasn't the faintest clue about the Pareto Distribution, or Pareto Efficiency - which I covered in two previous blogs.

Since I've dealt with the noisome and dishonest Uncle Tom before, let me merely stick to his more outrageous claims in this particular column. He writes, for example:

"They (American seniors) want their Social Security and their Medicare to stay the way they are- and their anger is directed against those who want to change the financial arrangements that pay for these benefits"

Now that's a really neat euphemism, "change the financial arrangements"! But as I already showed, the "change in financial arrangements" these miscreants want for Medicare is NO Medicare! Paul Ryan's pseudo -Medicare plan essentially converts the whole system into a voucher system. The senior will be handed a $12,000 voucher (if that) then be sent on his or her merry way to try and purchase a policy on his or her own. Good luck on that! I tried it, in perfect health, merely 3 years ago, and the BEST policy I was offered was one with an $8,500 deductible (which didn't cover all medical issues) and for $450 a month. A senior in poor health would be lucky to get anything! The reason is the medical loss ratio for the insurance company would be too excessive, no profits! The senior could as well kill herself, or...do what one enterprising senior recently did in NC, rob a bank (sticking up a teller for $1) in order to be jailed and receive health care there. (No one could make this shit up, believe me!)

THIS is what the great Ryan "financial arrangement" will mean for most poor or sickly elderly. The CBO itself estimates that out of pocket costs will rise to 67% of totals, compare to about 25% now for standard Medicare.

As for Social Security, their idea of "financial arrangements" is to put the money into the stock market or what they call "privatizing it". Just what do these genii think would have happened had Bushie jr. gotten his way in 2005, and Social Security had been privatized? Well, seeing now in hindsight the stock market crash in the fall of '08, most seniors would be eating cat food out on the streets- assuming they could find spare cans in enough dumpsters!

Sowell obviously doesn't know dick or diddly, or he is simply too dishonest to come out with the real facts.

He then bloviates:

"Their anger should be directed at those politicians who were irresponsible enough to set up those programs without putting aside enough money to pay for the promises that were made- promises that cannot now be kept"

More nitwit bollocks! In fact, when FDR set up Social Security (read the history of this in the excellent book Social Security and Its Enemies by Max J. Skidmore) he knew the ONLY practical way to make social insurance feasible was to implement it as a payment system via current workers to current retirees. NO other way would work. This was known by ALL from the outset, and also that it would be paid for by payroll taxes. Thus, Sowell is disingenuous in asserting they didn't put aside money to pay for it. In fact, the payroll taxes accumulated as the implementers knew they would, and built up huge cash reserves! (Even more was infused in 1983, after Alan Greenspan proposed a higher payroll tax, to the current 6.2%, to take into account the coming baby boomer onslaught).

The problem? Despicable politicos and pork mongers have raided it to disguise the size of deficits, starting with Reagan. Thus, the money was there, but stolen! Hence, it is ignorant and wrong to say "promises were made that couldn't be kept". Indeed, as recently as 2004 more than $3.3 trillion remained in S.S. Trust funds (which DO exist and are kept in special bonds) but that has been drawn down by the protracted military adventures, occupations (see my previous blogs)

As for Medicare, that was also designed to be paid for by payroll taxes and it did have the money to sustain it. But idiot Sowell doesn't mention (or mayhap he forgets) the changes that caused its monies to bring it to near insolvency:

i) Not allowing Medicare from the outset to bargain for lowest prescription drug prices like the VA does.

ii) Not keeping a tighter rein on Medicare fraud.

iii) the 2003 Bush Medicare Act which created "Medicare Advantage" plans that consume $12 billion more per year than standard Medicare

All those in concert have placed Medicare near insolvency, but that problem can be reversed - not by killing Medicare like Ryan wishes - but reversing all the above policies: e.g. telling the Big PhrmA to go get fucked and allowing bargaining like the VA, eliminating all Medicare fraud, and eliminating all Medicare Advantage plans.

In addition, raising payroll taxes another 1 % wouldn't hurt, and increasing the payroll cap to at least $1 million, would also help sustain it.

Thus, Sowell's rejoinder to the effect "Don't you understand the money is not there any more? is pure B.S. It was there, but was raided by filthy political thieves and collaborators! (E.g. lobbyists)

The last bit of bullshit is the worst:

"..The way Social Security was set up was so financially shaky that anyone who set up a similar retirement scheme in the private sector would be sent to prison for fraud"

Again, this shows what a disreputable fraud he is! In fact, Social Security was never set up as a "retirement scheme", it was set up as a social insurance program. In the way it pays for current retirees, it is exactly like social insurance programs in other countries. For example, the National Insurance program of Barbados uses the exact same approach, and it started before FDR's. A certain % is taken out of the worker's pay each period and this goes to pay current retirees.

As for American Social Security, social insurance, as Max Skimore notes (op. cit.) it was always made clear to retirees that Social Security was to be but ONE prop of their retirement income, not the whole enchilada! They were expected to supplement it by pensions from private sources, or other means (e.g. annuities). Funny that a nabob like Sowell can't even communicate that simple truth about the program - but then, knowing his dishonest stance, maybe he prefers not to! It's easier to call it a "retirement scheme" analogous to a privately run operation.

As for tossing old ladies off of cliffs, no matter what changes are proposed for future retirees (i.e. the current Gen X and Y'ers) if they sow a lack of confidence in the system, such that these current workers lose faith in the programs, then that will impact all current beneficiaries negatively - if only by brazen political acts to reduce their S.S. COLAS while increasing the cost of Medicare premiums.

Why wouldn't Uncle Tom know that? Who knows? Maybe those who take his words as "gospel" ought to inquire!

GOP Tax Position: Dishonest, Despicable ....Traitorous!

"Let me be clear! Tax hikes are OFF the table!"

So said House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday, confirming again the GOP's bargaining position from bad faith in terms of raising the nation's debt ceiling, since they are prepared to reject ab initio the ONE solution that would most easily and rapidly solve our problems! This shows the GOP, aka repukes, are not serious about deficit control, but only wish to exploit it as a means of extortion on the Democrats to cut long-term social programs. (Ironically, at the same time, the GOP refuses to entertain any significant military spending cuts!)

This brash posturing comes on the heels of a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on Wednesday, outlining a projected "explosion" in government spending. The CBO names Social Security and Medicare, but let's be frank about what's really going on here. We need the perceptions of deep politics for this, not superficial or pundit-cheap politics such as on the tube.

The population has more than tripled in the U.S. since FDR initiated the Social Security program, and more than doubled since LBJ initiated Medicare (in 1966) and so basic arithmetic stands at the foundation of most the increase. In addition, it was a Republican president, Richard M. Nixon, who approved the go ahead for cost of living (COLA) increases in Social Security, realizing if this wasn't done, then rising medical expenses and fees from Medicare would soon swallow ALL of a retiree's money.

The real basis then for the "explosion" of government costs is NOT Social Security and Medicare per se, but the unwillingness to fund them! (While simultaneously raiding Social Security monies to pay for military adventures and pork to hide the size of deficits!)

The Republicans have known all along that if enough tax cuts and expensive military interventions, occupations could be mounted, the government would eventually spend down its assets and reach the point where the social programs would be in jeopardy- unless drastically pared back. The GOP and anti-tax terrorist Grover Norquist (who designed an insane "pledge" against raising taxes that all new Goop-ers must sign) have succeeded in achieving this condition by:

- ten years of military occupations at a total cost now of nearly $3.4 trillion

- ten years of Bush tax cuts at a cost of over $3.1 trillion (including the last extension in December), and

- increasing the defense budget to 3.9% of GDP in 2004 (which former defense analyist Chuck Spinney called "the start of a war on Social Security and Medicare")

Thus, the "ballooning costs" of Social Security and Medicare as reported by the CBO have only been because the Repukes have refused to allow the tax revenue which is needed to pay for them - including for their own Republican constituents known as "values voters" (especially in the Deep South). They have even disallowed raising the payroll cap to $1m, requiring more rich folks to pay in, which would immediately make Social Security viable for another 75 years. But they know if they did that, the current Generation X and Y'ers would also be assured of receiving their benefits so might well become long time program defenders - by becoming Dem voters!

Meanwhile, in a separate pragraph, the CBO validated this by noting that these current and future expenditures could be kept pace with provided the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire next year and allow the AMT (alternative minimum tax) to hit higher income families. If not, according to the CBO, "under current tax policies, revenue will barely cover the cost of the health and retirement programs alone by 2035."

But again, this is what the GOP wants! They want to put the Democratic Party under severe political pressure,in any ways they can. Just as they're now doing it behind the scenes in many Repug-held states (by governorship) thus requiring strict photo IDs for any future voters (i.e. next year), which they know many of the elderly, African-American and young will never be able to meet.

Here's the dirty filthy truth these anti-tax miscreants don't want people to know: current tax rates as a percentage of GDP are the LOWEST they've been in nearly 40 years! The other dirty secret is that even without the military adventures and "wars" of choice, the Bush tax cuts themselves would've bled us into massive debt. The extended occupations, being unpaid for by higher taxes, just exacerbated the horrific debt ratio much more! The CBO in its report states if current tax rejection policies remain unchanged (and the national debt continues to grow as a result) then U.S. economic output could be as much as 6% smaller than current projections by 2018 and 18% by 2035.

This again, isn't startling or amazing! As early as 1995, economists James Medoff and Andrew Harless, in the The Indebted Society (p. 84, 'Let Them Eat Cake'), found that that "high tax rates are associated with higher productivity growth". There is a consistent and strong relationship. By contrast, for the years when supply side dogma held (during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years), productivity retreated by more than 30% and debt exploded- exactly the opposite of what we've been sold. As they wrote:

"For the health of the economy, Reagan's policies turned out to be just about the worst thing that could have happened: investment did not increase, growth continued to stagnate, and the federal deficit ballooned to new dimensions.

This was validated (for the Bush tax cuts, or as we call them, "Reagan Supply side II") by a Financial Times detailed analysis of the Bush Tax cuts in its Sept. 15, 2010 issue (page 24), wherein it was observed:


"“The 2000s- that is the period immediately following the Bush tax cuts – were the weakest decade in U.S. postwar history for real, non-residential capital investment. Not only were the 2000s by far the weakest period but the tax cuts did not even curtail the secular slowdown in the growth of business structures. Rather the slowdown accelerated to a full decline”

Contrast this with the hike in taxes (to only 39.5%) immediately after Bill Clinton took office, leading to the accumulation of more than $600 billion in surpluses by the time he left in 2000, and the creation of 20 million jobs.

Meanwhile, the FT analysis observes that “during each decade from the 1950s to the 1990s, growth in real gross non-residential investment averaged between 3.5 percent and 7.4 percent a decade. During the 2000s it averaged a mere 1%”

It is evident to anyone but a certified idiot, that higher taxes are the path out of our financial morass. On the other hand, the continued stubbonr refusal to raise taxes is the path to national fiscal suicide and the U.S. rapidly becoming a very large third world country - with a few elites at the top, but the mass of people groveling.

THIS is why the GOP anti-tax position is not only dishonest and despicable, but fiscally traitorous as well. The Dems, for their part, must not yield to this extortion - no matter what threats the Repukes make! Or how many times Eric Kantor pitches a tantrum or Boner weeps his eyes out!

Scoring President Obama

Barack Obama did a magnificent job in his speech two nights ago, in performing a flexible bit of political tap dancing that would make King Solomon proud in terms of splitting differences. In addition, he managed to upset the Whacko Right (which will always want tax cuts and indefinite military spending to weaken domestic safety nets) as well as the Left. How to score him? I gave him a 10 out of 10 for lucidity, but a 5 out of 10 for policy effect, including worsening the debt position-deficit over the next 3 1/2 years.

The sad and inescapable fact is that his decision to have only 10,000 leave the Afghan theater by the end of the year, and only 23,000 by the end of next year, merely brings us back to "square one". In other words, what we had before Mr. Obama's surge in 2009. This means at least a minimum of $100 billion pissed down that rathole every year...until 2014, given now as the putative date for final clear out. That means by the end of it all, at least $800 BILLION will have been squandered on a nation which is really in a Tribal Civil war while immense domestic needs (like infrastructure repair) go unattended. This is in addition to nearly $3 trillion similarly squandered in Iraq. (Not including $280 billion to pack & transport the expended -leftover materiel out of Iraq to Kuwait)

Between this fiasco and the extension of the Bush tax cuts in December, nearly $1.7 trillion will have been added to the deficit - which we are to understand is now reaching a critical mass (though from the behavior of most politicos you'd never know it).

The Repukes are the worst hypocrites, in that on every TV appearance they're whining about the "deficit" this and that, yet refuse to do the ONE thing that will most effectively cut it: RAISE REVENUE via taxes! They believe, in their insipid little dwarf brains, they can actually cut the deficit by 40% merely via spending cuts. Are they insane? One believes so, but more on this in the next blog.

Given Obama's feeble draw down it's therefore passing crazy for the Reeps to be barking like rabid dogs about "betraying the generals" and our "fighting men". How about betraying all the citizens of this country, many of whom don't know where the next meal is coming from...or mortgage payment? How about allowing insane and wasteful spending to continue without even having the guts to at least pay for what you endorse, Reepos? How about the insanity of continuing a defense policy which in the end gets us nothing, because - make no mistake- Afghanistan will be what it is 3 years from now, and 33 years from now! Several empires and wannabes (the last the former Soviet Union) have already learned that to their eternal pain and sorrow!

And then we hear "the generals don't like it" or "hate it" or whatever! But who the fuck are the generals? The generals are NOBODY! It is the President who is Commander in Chief so it is HIS decisions that are to be followed! The "generals" - mainly the Joint Chiefs - will always want their little military escapades and interventions....hell, it keeps them in business and the $$$ flowing to defense contractors! If the "generals" had their way we'd never have a moment's peace because their precious military-industrial complex would face de-funding. That's why departing Defense Secretary Robert Gates' words (concerning too large defense cuts making the U.S. military less capable) need to be taken with a grain of salt, as well as those of Gen David Petraeus.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy heard the same crap from his JCS when he held the highest office. Not only did those dicks want him to actually invade Cuba and bomb it during the Missile crisis in October, 1962,(which would have let all Hell loose) but Gen. Curtis LeMay compared him to Neville Chamberlain as an even "worse appeaser". Can you believe that? But JFK had the stones to stand his ground. Moreso in the case of Vietnam, when after assessing all the evidence in September, 1963 he then signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 to have all the troops out by calendar year 1965. The ARVN (South Vietnamese) were to take over ALL military functions by then, come hell or high water.

Of course the "generals" didn't like it. Not one bit! Their favorite bit of codswallop was the now discredited "domino theory". In fact, this was perhaps the most infamous slippery slope "argument"(actually a logical fallacy) of all, invoked to delay or prevent the U.S. departure from a losing effort in Viet Nam. LBJ bought into it, big time, which was why once he became President, his first act was to fire off NSAM-273 to repeal JFK's NSAM 263 draw down mandate. After that, he merely needed to engineer the right ruse to ramp up U.S. involvement and manpower, which he via the phoney Turner Joy and Maddox humbug incident in August, 1964.

But even after more than 10 years of bloody jungle war, the Reeps and their warmonger sidekicks (and Generals) kept yapping:

"Oh, we can’t leave, not now! Not at this time! If we just pull out Viet Nam will be the first of many dominoes to fall across Southeast Asia! Next will be Cambodia, then Thailand (Myanmar), then Laos, then Malaysia and who knows where it will end? The Philippines too?”

As it transpired, the depletion of treasure ($269 billion) forced the U.S. to finally bail out in 1975, with over 58,000 American dead by that time. Whereas, the numbers would have been much less had fewer powerful minds not succumbed to the slippery slope “domino theory” nonsense.

Similar nonsense arguments have been enlisted to try to prevent the U.S. from leaving another military quagmire in Iraq. (Though to be sure, the cost in casualties is more by way of slow attrition and medical costs than from outright large battles like in ‘Nam). This time, the slippery slope is that if the U.S. leaves, the entire Middle East will fall to "terrorists". And after that, they will follow us home and attack us in our Malls. Now, since we can’t have that, it follows that we will have to stay in Iraq for generations! Problem is, where’s the money going to come from to pay for it? It's all very well to proclaim we'll be in those places indefinitely, but how many loans do you think the Chinese are going to make - especially with Bernanke's near zero interest rates?

Nobody seems to be able to address the money question, despite the fact in all previous serious interventions (such as WWII, Korea and Vietnam) taxes were raised to pay for their increasing costs - and/or the debts engendered in the aftermath. Now, all the reep-tards and their tea party idiots (who ought to be siding with Ron Paul to demand pullout)seem to believe two full bore occupations can be managed with TAX CUTS!

In the end, the real head-on combat is coming, in about 40 days, when the debt ceiling will need to be raised. The sad truth is, without all the military interventions of the past ten years - plus the insane and idiotic tax cuts- we wouldn't be anywhere near this predicament, nor would blow-dried pundits be bloviating about cutting "entitlements". The true fact was as former defense analyst Chuck Spinney put it back in 2004, the escalating military-defense budget has effectively caused a fiscal war to be waged on Medicare and Social Security.

One hopes Mr. Obama grasps this more securely the next time he gives a speech on Afghanistan!