I just want to stake my claim now, Rick Santorum will be the next president of the United States... in 2016. I know that no one knows the future, but it's the most likely scenario given past patterns. Here's why:

1- The Republican moderate loses. Like McCain, Dole, George H.W. Bush, Thomas Dewey and Wendell Willkie before him, Romney will lose in November, 2012, so expect Obama to serve a second term.

2-The American public switches to the other party if the incumbent served two terms. (FDR and George H.W. Bush being exceptions, but Reagan was an exceptional president so Bush managed to ride on his coattails to win once, but only once.) Therefore, after Obama is done, it will be the Republican's turn. Whoever they put up will win. Now even if Obama turns out to be Reagan-esque popular (which he won't) his VP won't be able to stretch that popularity for one more term because Biden won't run. The Democratic party primary will be wide open.

3- The next GOP candidate will be Rick Santorum because the GOP nominates the #2 from the previous presidential primary, or at least someone who has run before. Check me on this. You have to go back a long way in history to find someone who won the GOP primary who hadn't run and lost previously. It's how they play the game. I believe there are two reasons for this:
a- The establishment anoints him because "it's his turn and he paid his dues and showed he could win primaries."
b-The hoi polloi vote for him based on name recognition and also a vague sense of it being his turn. They are used to his name being associated with "president" by now.
The Republicans have done this for EVERY GOP primary going back a long, long ways. (The only recent exception being George W. Bush, and he is the exception that proves the rule. He had the name recognition for the hoi polloi and a sense of entitlement from the establishment. The average Republican voter needs to be able to hear the candidate's name with the word "President" in front of it, and it sound OK. That's right. I'm saying that if George W. Bush had ANY other name, he wouldn't have won.) In other words, conservatives really are "conservative". They reject an idea the first time they hear it. It takes them a while to get used to the idea.

Therefore, because Romney will lose, because the public will be ready for a different party to be in the White House and because Republicans nominate the #2 from the previous primary, Rick Santorum will be the next president of the United States. You read it here first. Bookmark this post and save it on your computer.

I met a new friend for lunch a few weeks ago and the topic of the polygraph came up. In the particular instance we were talking about, the polygraph had revealed a deception. My friend, naturally curious, said, “So those things work?” Ironically, my short answer was no. My long answer is below. . . .

I have lots of experience taking polygraph exams. Over the past several years, I’ve taken probably 20 of them, maybe more.

The polygraph -- popularly known as “the lie detector” -- is a device that measures certain physiological responses like blood pressure, respiration, etc. The theory is when people lie, those physiological responses change. The problem with the theory is it has no scientific validity.

In a landmark 2003 study titled The Polygraph and Lie Detection, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) states:

Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. Although psychological states often associated with deception (e.g., fear of being judged deceptive) do tend to affect the physiological responses that the polygraph measures, these same states can arise in the absence of deception. Moreover, many other psychological and physiological factors (e.g., anxiety about being tested) also affect those responses. Such phenomena make polygraph testing intrinsically susceptible to producing erroneous results.

From my experience, I can say that the polygraph as truth verifier is somewhat accurate. In other words, if someone takes a polygraph and passes, there’s a decent chance that they’re telling the truth. On the other hand, the polygraph as lie detector (what it is popularly known and used for) may be only slightly more accurate than flipping a coin -- and there’s no true way to substantiate even that level of accuracy. As a scientist friend of mine told me, “There are simply too many variables.” In my own experience over the years, the polygraph was exactly 50 percent accurate.

Anecdotally, if I had to put an overall number to the accuracy of the polygraph, I’d give it 65 percent. Furthermore, the more someone is educated on polygraph procedure, and the more inquisitive someone’s mind may be, the more likely the machine will give false results by finding a truthful person to be “deceptive.” To put it more bluntly, the polygraph may be more accurate -- or, at the very least, more effective -- on simple-minded people, but again, the very foundation of polygraphy (linking deception to certain physiological responses) is ill-conceived. The previously mentioned NAS report states, “The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception.”

While it may have some efficacy within certain contexts, the illusion of “lie detection” is too great a power and is often abused by authorities who choose to rely on it. Thus, the fruits of polygraphy are false accusations, job losses, family disruptions, unfounded distrust, and an overall laziness by those who choose to employ the machine.

By and large, the polygraph as lie detector simply doesn’t work as advertised.

I don't know anything about polygraphs, and I don't know how accurate they are, but I know they'll scare the hell out of people. -- Richard Nixon

Inspired by two (seemingly) unrelated pieces I read online this morning.

1- Should Women be allowed in Combat?
I just heard on the news this week that women will now be officially allowed combat roles for the first time in the U.S. Military. This is because in the past 10 years of the "War on Terror", there have been woman who had to take on combat roles by necessity, even if that wasn't their primary role.

In response, Rick Santorum just re-articulated the two basic and traditional arguments against it:

As one reason, Santorum cites “the emotions of men.’’ The White House hopeful says there is the potential that men will not be focused on their combat mission but on what he calls a “natural instinct’’ to protect a woman.

Santorum also questions having women in combat roles because of what he says are “all sorts of physical issues’’ relating to the capabilities of men and women.

I include this quote from him not because I want to discuss Santorum on this thread, but because I expect, for the first time, these two traditional arguments to be mocked and scoffed. He had the audacity to say them out loud and to many these arguments will seem outdated and sexist.

I don't think they are. I think these are timeless and timely arguments. I have never served in the military, but for various reasons I've been blessed with many, many close relationships with those who have. And every soldier I've ever talked to about it re-articulates the two arguments above.

I remember in particular my Junior ROTC instructor, an army ranger who voluntarily served two tours of duty in Vietnam say, "Combat is bad enough with men, your brothers, dying all around you. But still it is a totally different experience to see a woman with her face blown off. There's just something naturally ingrained into men. You have to protect her...and then you will compromise the mission. You won't be able to focus on what you need to do."

It's been over 20 years...and I still remember the soft tone that this very tough man took and the horror I felt, when he said, "woman with her face blown off".

Combat is ugly, ugly business. And yes, it's far uglier when women are a part of it.


2- Why are Hollywood portrayals of women in the role of men always tragic?

From the Plugged-In review of the new movie "Albert Nobbs" about a woman who spends her life pretending to be a man.

A postscript: While addressing the issue of historical gender disparity so profoundly illustrated in Albert Nobbs, I feel compelled to make an observation about its modern incarnation in movies. What happens when one gender plays the other? When men put on a dress and lipstick, the intended effect is almost always laughter. Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie. Tyler Perry's turns as Madea. Adam Sandler as brother and sister twins in Jack and Jill. John Travolta as Edna Turnblad in Hairspray.

When women play men, however, the outcome is more often tragic. Sooner or later, we've been taught to anticipate, these vulnerable women's well-cloaked secret—usually under layers of femininity-disguising clothes—will be revealed. And their worlds will explode. Or end. The most prominent example of this (before Albert Nobbs)? The story of Brandon Teena (played by Hilary Swank), horrifically illustrated in 1999's Boys Don't Cry.

I thought of a couple more examples that the reviewer, Adam Holz, didn't mention.

Men as women: Tom Hanks' TV sitcom - Bosom Buddies, Tony Curtis in "Some Like it Hot", Martin Lawrence in "Big Momma's House", Two Wayans brothers as "White Chicks", Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire, Barry Watson in Sorority Boys, "Juwanna Man". I'm sure you all could think of more, or look it up. All of them are comedies and not just comedies, but madcap ridiculous comedies.(or at least are supposed to be.)

Women as men: First of all, there aren't as many. There were two comedies, "Just one of the Guys"(1985) and "She's the Man" with Amanda Bynes. (2006) But these are exceptions, and even those had serious undertones and sections. Usually women disguised as men aren't funny. It's usually serious, but more often tragic. Barbara Streisand as "Yentl"; The Ballad of Little Jo, in which a woman must dress as a man to survive in the west, when she is found out post-mortem the pain is expressed as violent anger. In "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" Eowyn dressed as a male soldier so that she can ride into combat, though she performs admirably, her little foray still ends with violence and sadness.

These are serious movies, and the storyline of "woman disguised as a man" never ends well and almost always tragically (both in the dramatic and emotional sense.)

Even Hollywood with all it's liberal sensibilities can't seem to quite escape from...

(yes, I'm going to go ahead and be bold enough to say it)

...our God-given gender roles.

Today I was reminded of this quote by the great Winston Churchill (or at least attributed to him - I don't have it sourced yet):

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

This is going to be a rough year. Hang tight, people, use your God-given discernment, and pray for our country.

P.S. The sad part is that these days every year is an election year.

"Yo, yo, Santa, hold up, I'ma let you finish, but everyone knows I have the best handouts of all time."

The other day I was at work, standing in one of the areas that has TV broadcasts running. I saw this story highlighted on one of the 24-hour news stations:

"President Obama signs executive order cutting government waste"

A number of people were nearby as well and we all started laughing. I mean, really, is that all it took? An executive order? We're saved!!!

All kidding aside, I think there is a profound moral component to the way a government spends money. I also believe that committing our grandchildren to suffocating debt is immoral. The American government has, for decades, spent more than it takes in, but I thought that the recent unprecedented deficits - deficits over a trillion dollars that make past overspending look like pocket change - coupled with the mind-numbingly scary sovereign debt crisis around the world would wake us up as a country. I was wrong. There have been no significant spending cuts seriously and realistically enacted by our congress or proposed by our executive branch. What's strange is that private businesses deal with this all the time. When they face a debt crisis, they cut spending. Our government seems incapable of this.

Meanwhile, the party I don't generally vote for is performing the kabuki theater of "stimulus", "super" committees, and executive orders outlawing bad weather and the post-Christmas blues. The party I generally vote for can't find anyone in our entire 300,000,000+ population who has the experience, gravitas and ethics to have chance of being elected president.

And I don't think anyone on either side is really serious about dealing with the immorality of our over-spending.

The reason, of course, is that we electorally punish them when they behave responsibly.

"Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J. O'Rourke

P.S. The upshot of all this is I'm beginning to check out politically. My consumption of, for instance, political blogs and news has gone down dramatically in the past few months, and I'm happier for it. But I will pray, and I will vote, and I hope you will too. I think doing those things is important.

This graph is revelatory.



[Source]

In his typically cheeky way, Doug Wilson comments:

For every gallon of gas that is sold in the United States, on average, the local, state and federal taxes come out to 48 cents. The average profit taken away from every gallon of gas by Exxon is --brace yourselves for unsavory news about the oil buccaneers -- 2 cents. If you don't like oil profiteering, then you really have to learn how to see our public servants as the equivalent of 24 Exxons, stacked on top of your travel plans like they were so many leeches.

Exxon feels free to take that 2 cents because they explored, researched, drilled, transported, refined, transported, and sold the gas that you were interested in buying. The government is entitled to it . . . why?

God says not to steal, and not even to think about stealing by means of coveting. We have to learn that our bad attitude toward free enterprise is caused by the larceny in our hearts. We think the way we do about oil companies because we want a piece of the action, for nothing. We don't think that way about predatory taxation for the same reason that one thief doesn't see the larceny in the heart of his fellow thieves. We are looking for the kickback.

As a wise man posted somewhere, "It's not theft if you have to fill out a form." So the devotional thought for the morning is that Jesus wants you to feel sorry for Exxon. And when we hear this call to radical discipleship, our faith staggers. Who can do these things? And the reply comes, comforting our hearts, that with God all things are possible.

So the Republicans are draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagging their feet to get into the 2012 presidential election. (The Iowa Caucus is only 10 months away!)

But no one has officially declared yet, so I'll jump in early and tell you who I'm pulling for:

Tim Pawlenty, two-term Governor of Minnesota

An evangelical Christian, he is a staunch opponent of abortion rights and same-sex marriage -- messages that should help build support among social conservatives in the key states of Iowa and South Carolina.
Other advantages for him in the fight for the nomination include an easygoing style and a record as governor that he touts during speeches. Source

In February 2008, columnist Robert Novak wrote that Pawlenty was the most conservative Minnesota governor since Governor Theodore Christianson in the 1920s. Source

Go to his PAC or his facebook page to find out more.

During his two terms as Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty has used innovative and conservative leadership to balance the state’s budget, cut spending, reform health care and improve schools without raising taxes. Under his leadership, Minnesota has nation-leading health care, the highest school test scores, and a leading economy.

He was elected to the local city council in 1989 and to the state House of Representatives three years later. In the state House, Tim quickly rose to become the Republican majority leader, and led efforts to enact the largest tax cuts in Minnesota history. After being elected governor in 2002, Tim kept his campaign promise and balanced the budget every year without raising taxes. In fact, Tim cut taxes by nearly $800 million, moving Minnesota out of the top 10 highest taxed states – a goal of every Minnesota governor for over 30 years. source

Pawlenty spoke at the 2007 March for Life conducted by Minnesota Citizens Concerns for Life. At the event, he minced no words when it comes to the pro-life position he takes. “We are gathered here to say that there is no liberty greater than the right to life. We’re here to affirm that we need to extend that right to the most vulnerable among us, and that is the unborn,” he said. source

Just wanted to see this headline somewhere.

A good friend loaned me a copy of the book "Game Change" on CD. It is an in-depth, behind the scenes look at the presidential election of 2008. And you know what? Everybody cusses. A lot. All the time. The candidates, their spouses, their aids, their advisers, their staff, the reporters covering the campaign, everybody. I'd say that they cuss like sailors, but that wouldn't be kind to sailors. The new expression needs to be, "Cuss like a politician."

Why?

I think I've discovered that for politicians, profanity is a commonly expected part of communicating with others involved in politics. That's how they talk to each other.

I'm also currently reading "Decision Points" by George W. Bush. And you know what? I'm only on chapter 3, and there's already been two occasions where the "f-word" was a major component of a story about how politics functions "behind the scenes". Out of the public eye when the politicians are doing the mechanics behind what the public will see, they use the "f-word" as a major means of communication.

In the one scene, Bush is talking about trying to compromise on legislation with Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, and Bullock uses the "f-bomb",not as an adjective, but as a verb. In other words, it wasn't just added descriptive for emphasis, the "f-word" carried the strategic point across. And Bush deflected it with humor, but used the "f-word" right back. Let me put it another way, in order to give us an idea of the working relationship between him and Bullock, he chooses a story where he deftly turns the "f-word" around on Bullock like verbal jujitsu, and uses it right back.

Later, the "f" word is used as part of a term to negatively describe how the organization of Bush's White House is functioning.

To his credit, Bush never spells out the word, but he refers to it both times in such a way,that the reader knows what word he's referring to. And in each case, the "f-word" is essential to understanding the story he's telling, so just leaving it out wouldn't make sense.

And here's what bugs me. In both of those circumstances, Bush seems comfortable with the term. He knows enough to leave it out of the book, but in the eye-to-eye, man to man world of politics, he seems as comfortable with it as anybody. My guess is that he has to be, because that's how those people talk.

I believe that Bush is a godly Christian man. I also think that profanity is par for the course in politics. Remember those incidents where a major politician was accidentally captured by a microphone uttering profanity? Cheney, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Kerry and many more have all been caught. Guess what... I don't think those were just occasional slips. That's how those people talk to each other when the public isn't listening.

Again I'll ask, "Why?"

Here's my guess: I think that's how the world talks, and I'm just sheltered because I hang out with church people. And when I'm not with church people, people watch their language around me because I'm a pastor. For those of you who live out in the real world, what's it like? Is it 24/7 profanity? Or is that just for sailors, construction workers and politicians?

I got an Amazon Kindle for Christmas. After playing with it a for a few hours, I quickly realized that I'll probably have a Kindle, or something similar, for the rest of my life. I love it.

So far the only book I've paid for on my Kindle is George W. Bush's Decision Points. I read a decent amount of Bill Clinton's My Life back in the day, and it's interesting to juxtapose the two books in my mind. Clinton's was more of a minute by minute memoir of what seemed like every second of his entire life. (How he could recall all that detail from his childhood and early adult life is beyond me.) Bush's book is more to the point, with each chapter highlighting major decisions he made as president (and a few prior to his presidency).

I miss George W. Bush. Reading the chapter on 9/11 is like being smack-dab in the middle of his mind on one of the most important days in American history. I'm impressed with how good of a storyteller he is.

As you all may recall, Bush learned about the 9/11 attacks while reading to a roomful of second-graders in Florida. While walking up to the school, Karl Rove told Bush that an airplane had crashed into the World Trade Center. He thought it was strange, and wrote, "I envisioned a little propeller plane horribly lost." A few minutes later, while in front of the group of elementary children, he got the full picture.

I sensed a presence behind me. Andy Card [Bush's chief of staff] pressed his head next to mine and whispered in my ear.

"A second plane hit the second tower," he said, pronouncing each word deliberately in his Massachusetts accent. "America is under attack."

Wow! What a surreal moment that must have been. While probably not understanding the gravity of the situation, clicking photographers captured the historic moment that Bush turned into a wartime president:



Minutes later, after hearing about the third attack, the one on the Pentagon, Bush was livid.

My thoughts clarified: The first plane could have been an accident. The second was definitely an attack. The third was a declaration of war.

My blood was boiling. We were going to find out who did this, and kick their ass.

That's what I love about George W. Bush, and that's what I miss about him. He had an unwavering impulse to defend his America in the very face of evil, and while not being perfect, he did what he had to do.

Thank you, President Bush.

[This is Part Two of a two-part series on last week's midterm elections. Part One, appearing yesterday, focused on the significance of the election and the message we should take away from last Tuesday. Today, the focus is on the impact the election will have going forward. Thank you to Bill and The Thinklings for the opportunity to share my thoughts.]

The events of last Tuesday are still being processed. Even now, there are six US Representative races that have yet to be called. But let us not let the fact that this election isn't even over keep us from beginning to talk about the next two years. (Where's the fun in that?) Many are already looking ahead to 2012, throwing names out like Hillary, Dean and Feingold as possible primary opponents to Obama. If any of those materialize, the GOP has to be considered the favorite to win the general election, regardless of their candidate. The Republican standbys include Palin, Romney and Huckabee while some new names have entered the fray like Chris Christie [who has given every indication that he won't run] and Marco Rubio [who would be the GOP equivalent of Obama in 2006].

But the final results of the 2012 election season will depend greatly on what happens in 2011. You will begin to see Republican Presidential would-bes, could-bes and wannabes begin to try and provide a meta-narrative to DC politics in a few months (it doesn't hurt that a few of them have time on Fox News). It will be a battle of message between these potential candidates and the White House. We’ll see whose narrative sticks, but if the Republicans can come together on a central message, they have a strong shot at winning the battle, especially when one considers the utter lack of message by the Democrats over the past months.
Read the rest of this entry . . .

[This is Part One of a two-part series on last week's midterm elections. Part One focuses on the significance of the election and the message we should take away from last Tuesday. Thank you Bill and The Thinklings for the opportunity to share my thoughts.]

Last Tuesday, a massive political overturn in the House of Representatives saw the Democrats handing a strong majority over to the Republicans. The Senate also moved towards GOP control, although the Republicans fell short of what they needed to own a majority. Governorships across the country slanted Republican as did State legislatures. In short, the GOP won big, but not as big as some had hoped. Still, you won’t find many Republicans complaining. All the while, underneath the surface of the electorate, the Tea Party movement went from relative obscurity to changing the face of government across our nation in just over a year.
Read the rest of this entry . . .

Tired of moronic statements like "these are the most difficult times our country has ever faced"? Stupefied by overused and hackneyed analogies of slurpees and economic cars in ditches? Weary of attack ad warfare? Slack-jawed by ginned up class warfare? Baffled by statistics and the lying liars who wield them? Tired of being patronized, condescended, and fed a steady diet of baloney-sausage that would make a carnival barker blush? Disgusted by the slash-and-burn enmity between the "sides"?

I have a quick antidote for you: read a portion of the second inaugural address of a President who led our country through, believe me, the hardest times it has ever faced. Read the words of a President who wrote his own speeches and believed what he said.

You'll feel better.

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

- From Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865

I have to do this every two years, so if you dislike political discussions, please forgive.

What are your predictions for the 2010 midterm elections?

I'm predicting that the Republicans will gain a lot of seats in the house and some in the senate, but I think they are peaking a bit too soon and that the Democratic leadership is panicked enough at the moment to pull out all the stops, get on message, and save their bacon from ultimate defeat.

So, going out on a limb here:

Republicans almost but don't quite regain the house.

Republicans gain a few seats in the Senate, but not enough for a majority.

We get something a bit closer to divided government but not quite enough divided to prevent Washington from still mucking around in, well, in everything. So for those of you (like me) pining for the days when Congress and the Executive Branch were like oil and water and we had good ol' gridlock, resulting in very little getting "done", thus resulting in budget surpluses and overall well-being, it ain't going to happen this time around. Maybe in 2012.

Leave your predictions in the comments if you're so inclined.

He redecorated the Oval office!

the White House ditched the light-colored formal-looking couches that sat in former President George W. Bush's Oval Office. It also jettisoned the former occupant's sunburst rug and cream painted walls.

In their place, there's wall paper with a light beige stripe and caramel-colored, more informal couches that appear to some eyes to give off more of the air of a family room than a formal office occupied by the world's most powerful head of state.

How dare he? I'm actually surprised it took this long...

Gallery of past oval offices.

One more reason why I, a conservative, hate even conservative politics.

Even the "grassroots" movements are gross.

The Tea Party Federation (whatever that is) just expelled this guy from their ranks for his "coloreds write to Abe" letter, but that he was recognized in their ranks as a leading spokesman to begin with is just nutty. He's been saying off-the-reservation things for a while.

Here's something he wrote about Vermonters back when some town in Vermont wanted to issue arrest warrants for Bush and Cheney (itself a nutty move):


(I wonder if I can get "Retard CHUD from the Backwoods of New England" on a bumper sticker.)

More and more and more and more proof that in politics, the one with the loudest voice and pot-stirringest ideas rises to the top. Oh, and the most money.
I hate it.

A Texas pipeline tycoon who died two months ago may become the first American billionaire allowed to pass his fortune to his children and grandchildren tax-free.

Dan L. Duncan, a soft-spoken farm boy who started with $10,000 and two propane trucks, and built a network of natural gas processing plants and pipelines that made him the richest person in Houston, died in late March of a brain hemorrhage at 77.

Had his life ended three months earlier, Mr. Duncan’s riches — Forbes magazine estimated his worth at $9 billion, ranking him as the 74th wealthiest in the world — would have been subject to a federal tax of at least 45 percent. If he had lived past Jan. 1, 2011, the rate would be even higher — 55 percent.

Instead, because Congress allowed the tax to lapse for one year and gave all estates a free pass in 2010, Mr. Duncan’s four children and four grandchildren stand to collect billions that in any other year would have gone to the Treasury.

The bonanza in tax savings for Mr. Duncan’s descendants is sure to be unsettling to those who have paid estate taxes on more modest wealth — until Jan. 1 of this year, it applied to any estate valued at more than $3.5 million, taxing only the money exceeding that threshold, or $7 million for a couple’s estate.

The one-year lapse in the estate tax was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2001, an accounting quirk in his package of tax cuts. Although Democrats pledged to close that gap and reinstate a tax for 2010 when they took control of Congress, they failed to reach an agreement last December.

The Treasury collected more than $25 billion in estate taxes in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available.

OK, so there it is. Super rich guy dies, and due to a loophole, his estate won't pay taxes this year. First time that's ever happened. Now what's your reaction?

A. Hmmmm. That's interesting.Can't believe the Democrats let that one slip by.
B. That's great! Good for his heirs! After all a loophole is just a right they haven't taken from you yet.
C. That's outrageous! That money could have fed the poor or paid for healthcare, and instead this fatcat's money is being passed on to his kids perpetuating American Aristocracy that stay rich and won't let anyone else have a piece of the pie.

Does answer C surprise you? Read on dear friend...

Advocates of the tax say it is unconscionable that Congressional leaders have allowed the richest Americans to reap a new tax break at a time when deficits are soaring and the income gap between wealthy and poor citizens remains near historic levels.

“The ultrawealthy in this country will still be able to pass on enormous wealth to the next generation,” said Chuck Collins, who studies income inequality and has worked with billionaires like Warren E. Buffett and Bill Gates to promote an estate tax. Mr. Collins argues that the tax is a “recycling program for economic opportunity.”

What?!?!?! A recycling program for economic opportunity? Seriously? What is Mr. Collins thinking? That as long as a wealthy person is hoarding money, poor people don't have access to that same money, so when the gazillionaire dies, estate tax is the way that the hoi polloi have a shot at it?

You've got to be kidding me. It's like the image that people who think like that has is like a desert island, where there is a limited supply of food. And one guy has 90% of it, and the rest of us have 10%. And so when he dies, it would be wrong for his son to get all that food. It should be redistributed to the rest of us. (After the jump at the bottom you can read how stingy Mr. Duncan was with his wealth.)

Except that's not how money, the economy or how opportunity works. Because someone else has a lot, does not mean you automatically can't. It's as though Collins thinks that Mr. Duncan had all of his money buried in the back yard somewhere, and now that he's dead, we all want a shot at it.

They are acting like the dwarves, elves and men fighting over the gold stash after Smaug dies in the end of "The Hobbit". Everybody wants what they think is their rightful share of the gold now that the dragon who was hoarding it is dead.

But that's not how money works. Other than pile it under the mountain with a dragon guarding it, or put it in the vaults at Gringott's Goblin Bank, wealthy people can only do one of three things with the their money:

A. Spend it.
B. Invest it.
C. Give it away.

That's it. There are no other choices.

Both of which helps the economy and spreads the wealth around. Why can't people understand that?
Read the rest of this entry . . .

And some liberals might actually be figuring that out, and of course, some just want more regulation.

The liberals' fury at the President is almost as astounding as their outrage over the discovery that oil companies and their regulators might have grown too cozy. In economic literature, this behavior is known as "regulatory capture," and the current political irony is that this is a long-time conservative critique of the regulatory state.

The Nobel economist George Stigler of the University of Chicago was one of the concept's main developers, and it is a seminal plank of the "public choice" school of economics for which James Buchanan won the economics Nobel in 1986. Ronald Reagan warned about this in different words in one of his farewell speeches.

In the better economic textbooks, regulatory capture is described as a "government failure," as opposed to a market failure. It refers to the fact that individuals or companies with the highest interest or stake in a policy outcome will be able to focus their energies on politicians and bureaucracies to get the outcome they prefer.

Perhaps if liberals read more conservative economists, they might understand that this is a common consequence of the regulatory state that they have so diligently constructed over the decades. It is also a main reason that many of us are skeptical of the regulatory solutions routinely offered in response to every accident or business failure.

We should add that so far, based on the available evidence, we don't know if this spill really was a regulatory failure. But no matter, the same liberals who made oil drilling one of the most regulated activities on Earth are now busy deploring the energy bureaucracy and rearranging it so that (they promise) this will never happen again. Sound at all like the financial panic and the new re-regulatory remedy?

How remarkable it is to see a President who has put such exorbitant faith in the power of government being excoriated by his allies for a government failure. It's almost as astonishing as seeing Carol Browner, the White House green czar and long-time scourge of fossil fuels, being interrogated on NBC for excessive deference to Big Oil. Sometimes life really is fair.

What is "Regulatory Capture"? I'm glad you asked!

Regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead acts in favor of the commercial or special interests that dominate in the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called Captured Agencies.

For public choice theorists, regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether. Regulatory capture refers to when this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at "capturing" influence with the staff or commission members of the regulatory agency, so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest are implemented.

Regulatory capture theory is a core focus of the branch of public choice referred to as the economics of regulation; economists in this specialty are critical of conceptualizations of governmental regulatory intervention as being motivated to protect public good.

The risk of regulatory capture suggests that regulatory agencies should be protected from outside influence as much as possible, or else not created at all. A captured regulatory agency that serves the interests of its invested patrons with the power of the government behind it is often worse than no regulation whatsoever.

I apologize for the political tone of this post and the last one, but I believe Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt has made a great point here.

First, for background: Harrison Schmitt was the second to last man to leave the surface of the moon, and the first true scientist among the lunar-landing astronauts (he was a geologist by training, rather than a test pilot).

Here's an excerpt:

The response after an oxygen tank explosion in the Apollo 13 spacecraft on its way to the Moon illustrates how complex technical accidents should be handled. It stands in sharp contrast to the Gulf fiasco. Solve the problem first; then investigate objectively; apply the lessons; and then, if absolutely necessary, worry about responsibility.

Nothing in the government’s response to the blowout explosion on the Deepwater Horizon and its aftermath bears any resemblance to the response to the Apollo 13 situation by NASA and its mission control team at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston.

Gene Kranz and his Apollo 13 flight controllers and engineers worked on the assumption that “failure was not an option.” In contrast, President Obama and those claiming to have been on top of the Gulf oil spill situation “from day one” assumed that failure is an option and, indeed, may want BP to fail for their own ideological reasons. Whatever their motives, the president and his cabinet officers, without any experience in real-world management of anything major, much less a crisis, have no idea how to deal with a situation as technically complex as the Gulf oil spill.

It has been left to BP engineers and managers and to Gulf state officials to respond as best they can in a regulatory environment that is politically charged, incompetent, fearful, and hesitant. Rather than allowing BP to stay focused only on solving the problems of the spill, Attorney General Holder now has launched a civil and criminal investigation!

I think he has a great point (though I don't think I agree with his charge that some in the current administration "may want BP to fail for their own ideological reasons"). I've read everything I can get my hands on about NASA history, and in particular the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. On this point Schmitt is exactly right: NASA endured two huge disasters during the Apollo project. The first was the terrible fire on Apollo 1 that claimed the lives of astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee. The second was the "successful failure" of Apollo 13 in which, thankfully, Lovell, Haise and Swigert returned to earth in one piece. In both instances, job #1 was to fix the problem. It really frustrates me that, in the midst of a huge environmental and human tragedy such as the out of control BP gusher, the Government is already diverting attention and resources by spouting threats.

I hate politics. Fix the problem. Then, once it's fixed, feel free to roll heads.