Jim Cooper, Democrat from Tennessee's 5th District, recently got his ears pinned back in a formal committee hearing. Cooper held up a sheaf of papers and went for the kill while questioning Glenn English, CEO of the NRECA, a national coalition of electricity providing cooperatives. Cooper stated the material he was talking about came from the NRECA's private, password protected site which he had accessed. At that point, English said he regretted Cooper's introduction of the topic and noted that NRECA counsel had advised him Cooper was under investigation for criminal violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

As expected, Cooper denies any wrongdoing. He first asked the NRECA for the information and was refused. He later obtained the username and password from an NRECA employee which he used to access the site and get the information he was previously denied access to. In a Clintonesque distortion of language, Cooper now equates using the login information of another with being personally authorized to view the site. Would Jim object if someone with a key to his office, say the cleaning woman, gave her key to someone who used it to enter his office and rifle his files? Exactly! But one man's authorized entry is another man's breaking and entering. Cooper further justified his actions by saying NRECA's customers had the right to know what was going on.

While opinions vary as to the law in these cases, the statute mentioned seems pretty straightforward. It appears there are a couple of places which may provide Cooper some legal problems. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act states in part,

a) Whoever-- ...

(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains-- ...

(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, ...

C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

and,

a) Whoever-- ...

(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if--

(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce;

have broken the law. The definitions of the terms "exceeds authorized access", "financial record" and more are provided later in the document. They don't help the Congressman's cause.

Whether Jim Cooper's actions were criminal would seem to boil down to: 1) Did Congressman Jim Cooper access the site in question? 2) Was he authorized to do so?; 3) Does the site contain any financial records?; 4) Do any site records pertain to either interstate communication, commerce or both?; 5) Did Cooper obtain the password via any means definable as "trafficking"?

#1 -The video records Cooper's admission he was on the site. Check! #2 - Having been denied access to the information previously, Cooper knew he was not authorized. That he bypassed that denial in the way he did further demonstrates he knew he was not authorized. Check! #3 - Also per the video, Mr. English testified the site contained both 401K and retirement records for NRECA associates. It is not unreasonable to assume those records related to financial institutions as the NRECA is not itself a financial institution. Check! #4 - The NRECA is a national coop with 900 members in 47 states. That settles the question of do the affairs of the NRECA include interstate commerce and might their site contain interstate communication. Check! #5 - This would depend on the definition of the term "Traffic". What did Cooper do to get the login information? Must money change hands? Could providing something non-monetary, but valuable, such as promising to take care of the leaker if discovered and find him work elsewhere be considered trafficking? If so, perhaps a final - Check! - is in order.

As mentioned, Cooper denies knowledge of any FBI investigation. Of course he does. The situation definitely could produce one. Is it happening? We'll have to wait and see. Cooper gets cover from the FBI itself as they don't comment on ongoing investigations. Cooper could be lying through his teeth and we wouldn't know until the FBI goes on the record. Of course, the Congressman could always "authorize" the FBI to "release information we've been denied access to previously" on the premise that, especially in an election year "the citizens of Tennessee's 5th District have the right to know if their Congressman engaged in illegal activities" punishable by either 5 or 10 years in the slammer for a first offense and possible fines on top of that. Those of you with some time on your hands, stop by and enjoy the shades of blue I can turn while holding my breath waiting.

Cooper, by any estimation, is not a powerful or influential member of Congress. He merely fills a seat and the "D" after his name provides power for those who are. Just another career politician who knows nothing of life outside the Beltway. Despite being a Rhodes Scholar, he isn't even bright enough not to confess to a crime on video. Is this the sort of politician we want in Washington? Do we really want someone making laws for the rest of us who cannot be bothered to obey them himself? There's an election coming where we can decide exactly that. See you at the polls.

Blue Collar Muse

The powers permitted to Government ought to be few and well defined. So believed James Madison. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of "police power". It should be noted the Constitution only extends police powers to the federal government in case of "counterfeiting, treason, piracy and offenses against the laws of nations." Which makes for disturbing news from Homeland Security. Seems citizens need to be aware of yet more when flying. Walter Williams illuminates. There is a new federal offense for air passengers. Called "nonphysical interference", it carries up to $1,500 in fines for distracting a Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) screener's attention from what he is doing. Williams writes the definition of

... nonphysical interference is solely up to the discretion of a TSA screener since it isn't defined in the regulations. TSA agents can levy fines for a passenger disagreeing with the behavior or arrogance of a screener.

Williams reports hundreds of accounts of rudeness by TSA employees. In March, 2004 alone there were almost 3,000 formal complaints about TSA behavior, none of which resulted in disciplinary action. This from folks who now have authority to fine and arrest you for "interfering" with their duties! This doesn't inspire confidence in the proper exercise of power. Even worse, Williams also reports TSA has an entirely new position. Behavior Detection Officers (BDO) are now examining body language, facial expressions and other behavior to determine which passengers exhibit behavior warranting a more detailed screening. Bob, a trained BDO blogging at TSA's 'Evolutions in Security' blog, defends the practice. He notes,

The program was designed by Paul Ekman (PhD), ... He’s been studying behavioral analysis for the past 40 years and has taught the TSA, Customs and Border Protection, CIA, FBI and other federal agencies to watch for suspicious facial expressions of tension, fear or deception. ... After passing along his skills to US Customs, their “hit rate” for finding drugs during passenger searches rose to 22.5 percent from 4.2 percent in 1998.

and further relates

Between July 1, 2007 and February 7, 2008, 514 people were arrested after being referred for additional screening or directly to law enforcement officers by behavior detection officers. The arrests include unlawfully carrying concealed firearms or other weapons, possession of fraudulent documents, transporting undeclared currency, possessing illegal drugs, immigration law violations, and outstanding warrants.

I'll admit the technique increased US Customs' hit rates over 500%. I'll also note it still failed over 75% of the time. That hardly seems a scientific result to brag about. Bob says BDOs might have flagged some of the 9/11 terrorists and "subjected them to secondary screening and questioning." That might have saved lives. And it sounds low key. Citizens are singled out for searching and a few questions and bad guys get busted. However, the WSJ reports BDOs are "agents ... trained to watch what [citizens] ... do and ask pointed questions to raise their stress levels ... to conduct rapid-fire questioning to find inconsistent stories." That's a different scenario and the potential for abuse is obvious. If we apply Customs' 75% failure rate to Bob's 514 arrests, over 2,000 innocent passengers were intentionally upset, provoked and abused in producing that result. Of the list Bob touts, only "firearms and other weapons" impact air travel safety, the real job of TSA. How many of the 514 busts were weapon related? 5? 25? 100? Allowing 25 undetected weapons through would be a 1% failure rate. Doing nothing would have vastly improved TSA performance. This is an apples-to-apples comparison. Because a 75% failure rate detecting bad guys by behavior equals TSA's rate for detecting bombs at the airport! Publishing figures USA Today says "stunned security experts", the TSA itself admitted failing to detect 75% of bomb components it tried to sneak past screeners at Los Angeles International Airport. At Chicago's O'Hare, the failure rate was 60%. These figures are from 2007. But the paper also reports "Tests earlier in 2002 showed screeners missing 60% of fake bombs. In the late 1990s, tests showed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs ..." In what should have been a highly touted result, the best screening results came from private screening companies. In 2007, "San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows." In 2002, "... screeners failed to find fake bombs, dynamite and guns 24% of the time. The TSA ran those tests shortly after it took over checkpoint screening from security companies." TSA could immediately improve results by over 200% if they simply privatize the process! Something needs to change. The figures paint a dangerous and unflattering portrait. TSA has had a 150% turnover in personnel in just over 6 years. This means inexperienced employees, often with only basic training, are on the job. There is little in the way of technology to make up for the inexperience. This produces pressure on frontline TSA personnel. Top that off by allowing an agency without police powers to increasingly look like police and act like police and we create what 'Consumer Reports' calls "A 'facade of security'". We also have the real threat of creating the very environment terrorists desire; innocents victimized by authority in response to terrorism. I wish I had solutions. I don't. But it seems our current solution is becoming worse than what it seeks to prevent. Increasing TSA authority is the wrong response. We need less confrontational, more successful and, dare I say, non-governmental options. The goal is not safety at any price or even merely safety. It is safety within the constitutional bounds of smaller government and undiminished personal liberty. We're at another one of those crossroads. Choose wisely. Blue Collar Muse

Near the beginning of The Declaration of Independence, these words appear.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It is here, a 30 second read into the birth of our nation, we find the most important right which government is to secure, the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration establishes three foundational rights. The Constitution generally amplifies them, outlining ways government may not prevent us from exercising them. Our Right to Life is partially expressed in our Right to Keep and Bear Arms to defend that Life if threatened. Our Right to Liberty is partially expressed in our Right to Due Process to ensure any restraint on that Liberty is just.

One Right listed in the Declaration is different. It has no amplification in the Bill of Rights. The least discussed, it is the most important - the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Pursuit of Happiness is different in that it guarantees nothing. Other Rights we enjoy enumerate a concrete something. We have Freedom of Speech. Speech is a “something” that is mine. Just so with Life, Liberty, to Bear Arms, the Press - at the end of each we find something tangible. Not so with the Pursuit of Happiness.

Pursuing Happiness is the only Right which does not define an outcome. We are not guaranteed Happiness, just the Pursuit of it. We are not assured the road will not be difficult or poorly maintained, merely that it is there to be traveled. Because of this, the Pursuit of Happiness is our most precious Right. Because phrased another way, it guarantees our Right to Fail.

Happiness is different for every man. Our dreams are as individual as we are. It would have been folly to try to define Happiness; folly to determine the best path to Pursue it. Pursuits may be long or short; easy or difficult; straightforward or complicated. While I am grateful for the straightforward, short and easy ones, it is the value in the complicated, long and difficult ones which the Declaration anticipated. Because the Pursuits teaching us the most, both building and revealing character; producing the most opportunity for us, are the difficult ones or the ones we fail to complete at all.

Thomas Edison tried over 4,000 different prototypes of the light bulb before realizing his goal. He is reported to have said, “I have not failed 4,000 times. I have discovered 4,000 ways not to create an incandescent light bulb!” Undaunted by failing in his Pursuit, Edison learned from each. It was because of, not in spite of, his failures, that he succeeded. Even the simplest Pursuits face obstacles. A man’s response to them determines not just his success in Pursuit of that specific Happiness. It determines his success for all future Pursuits as well.

Do we persist in adversity? Do we work as hard in anonymity as we do in the limelight? Do we collaborate or insist on solo Pursuits? There are a myriad lessons to be learned. Most of them are only learned through failure. As it is said, “Most good judgement comes from experience! Most experience comes from bad judgement!”

It is here where a man’s success or failure in his various Pursuits is determined. Because along with recognizing man’s Rights, the Declaration notes men institute government to secure them and that government does so only with the consent of the governed. It thus becomes vital for the governed to so value the Right to Fail they refuse to consent to any plan by government to take it from them. They must consent to striving in an environment, secured by government, in which failure is a valued result.

If We The People consent to government which takes away our Right to Fail, we consent to government which will take away our other Rights as well. Securing a government with power to eradicate our individual Pursuits, we secure a government with power to define our individual Happiness. When Happiness is defined for the many by government, individuals must surrender the rest of their Rights to facilitate the government’s Pursuit. Those refusing to do so are threats both to government and the governed. We all know how threats are dealt with.

This is the question Americans must answer. Will we be allowed to fail or not? The Left, and far too many on the Right, say, “No! No one must fail!” There remains, however, a minority which understands the value in failure. It understands the pain in little failures along the way are motivation to great Happiness at the end of the Pursuit! It understands failure is not an impediment to Happiness, it is a stepping stone to a successful Pursuit. It knows temporary suffering in a failure while Pursuing does not compare to the eternal suffering in failing to Pursue at all.

Celebrating your Independence today, understand what it means to be Independent! It means your success or failure in the Pursuit of Happiness depends on you, not the government. It means you not only can, but will, fail while in Pursuit. When your Rights are secured by government and not defined by it, you embrace failure as a blessing and not a curse, as a teacher and not a thief. You truly have Life, you are truly at Liberty, you have the best chance for a successful Pursuit!

In college, I hung a poster on my wall which read, “A ship in a harbor is safe. But that is not what ships were made for!” Enjoy your Pursuit! Godspeed!

Blue Collar Muse

A friend sent me a link to an editorial from the Hartford (CT) Courant authored by Robert Satter. Mr. Satter is a judge trial referee in Hartford Superior Court and author of "Under the Gold Dome — An Insider's Look at the Connecticut Legislature." He is also, in my opinion, a very dangerous man. He has power and influence and is using them to undermine the foundation on which our country was built.

Connecticut votes in November on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise its constitution. Some want to do so to give citizens the right to directly petition their government via the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) process. I&R allows an issue to be voted on by putting it put on the ballot by citizen request as opposed to legislative action.

The I&R process is not well liked by politicians as it usually limits what they can do. It may curtail their ability to raise taxes at will or to take your property if you don't want to sell. As such, it is not easy for citizens to actually get something on the ballot. I&R may be granted by a state's constitution but laws governing the process are made by the legislature. Lawmakers determine how many signatures are needed to get an issue on the ballot and the length of time available to collect them. Such power often impedes the process so effectively it's a wonder initiatives manage to get on the ballot at all. But If Mr. Satter had his way, you wouldn't even have that right. Mere citizens aren't qualified to speak to issues. Satter starts out well enough.

The right of initiative is the right of citizens to propose laws or constitutional amendments that, if approved by a majority vote, have the force of law.

From there, his description of I&R makes it appear those desiring the power to propose a law are selfish, power mad and out to corrupt the process. Well, he's right about that, too. He just got the subject wrong. Satter thinks voters are like that. In reality it's a better description of lawmakers. I&R is a powerful tool for citizens to curb the excesses of government, not the other way around. When Mr. Satter says I&R proposals

... are drafted by private lawyers representing narrow interest groups. Their wording frames the issue and cannot later be changed.

he's arguing that's bad for citizens. Has Satter never heard of lobbyists, lawyers and lawmakers? Are outsider Environmentalists OK as a narrow interest group when seeking to impose their view on the state but citizens who actually have to live with the laws passed too narrow an interest group to have an interest in the law? Mr Satter says,

Those signatures are not spontaneously given by the public, but must be actively solicited. In the initiative states, a cottage industry of signature solicitors has sprung up. In California, it typically costs $1 million to obtain the requisite number of signers.

Does he not understand support for a bill in the legislature does not spontaneously arise? Lawmakers expend huge amounts of time and energy actively soliciting the support of their colleagues. He dismisses the labor by which I&R signatures are gathered and ridicules those doing the work as a "cottage industry". He misleads readers by irresponsibly using the figure of $1 million with no context. If signature gathering is a cottage industry, what sort of "industry" is lobbying the legislature to get an issue on the ballot? Satter does not say where the money comes from to pay for signature gathering, just that it is spent. But these are not tax dollars, they are privately raised funds. If private money should not be used to influence the legislative process, I'll have to point again to lobbyists. Satter doesn't provide the total spent on lobbying the Connecticut legislature when it is in session. Something tells me it's more than $1 million.

But Robert Satter's worst insult to the intelligence and character of voters is saved for later.

And how is the campaign over initiative proposals waged? It is waged by slogans, bumper stickers, 10-second sound bites and by TV ads as if selling toothpaste. The vote is yes or no, up or down. There is not the deliberation and accommodation of the legislative process in which bills are carefully scrutinized by committees of cognizance, subjected to a public hearing, debated in both chambers and ultimately signed by the governor. In that process, all sides of the issue are explored, its relationship to other matters of public policy considered, negotiations between opposing sides conducted, and compromises and changes of wording made. In lawmaking by plebiscite, people rarely read the exact language of the propositions. They vote their general impression of the issue.

Do only I&R campaigns use slogans and sound bites? Does Satter really believe every bill passed is carefully read, deliberated and analyzed before being voted on? Is Satter actually arguing amendments hung on bills at the last second are completely understood and their ramifications tested and deemed acceptable? Is he seriously arguing citizens are incapable evaluating the impact their proposed I&R will have? It is true citizens don't debate the possible impact of the law for a couple of weeks before passing it and hoping for the best as the legislature does. Citizens are forced to live with the actual results of those laws. Tens of thousands of hours of debate and analysis then take place in legislative chambers known as kitchen tables, water coolers, carpools and the like. By the time an I&R is proposed, the issue is well known. Usually because citizens have already asked the legislature to fix the problem and they have refused. In such cases, I&R is often the citizens last resort.

But Robert Satter thinks that's a bad thing. The people of Connecticut, or anywhere else, shouldn't be able to insist their lawmakers really represent them. Citizens are ignorant peasants without the requisite intelligence, interest, time or ability to understand the workings of government. That lofty pursuit is best left to better men. Satter's premise is flawed. His conclusions are wrong. His arrogant contempt for citizens he seems to believe should be ruled over as opposed to represented is offensive. I&R is precisely what Connecticut and every other state without it needs, including my state of Tennessee. Without it, we are at the mercy of elitists like Robert Satter. While he may consider that a good thing, I find the prospect terrifying.

Blue Collar Muse.

On a recent Sunday morning drive to church, I saw this sign. I was immediately struck by two things.

First, it hasn't taken long for players on the Left to start marching to the beat of misinformation, deception and lies that must be part of Obama's campaign if he is to win. He cannot be seen for who he really is or he will lose. Second, this is the Union's marquis, not just Greg Stallings'. How many members believe gas prices are Bush's fault?

Lies and deception? Those are harsh words. However, the question is, are they justified? An objective consideration of facts says they are. The sign's point is the price of gas has increased from $1.46 p/gal to over $4.00 p/gal since 01/01. It was Bush's watch so it must be Bush's fault. Voters should, therefore, punish Bush and the GOP for their mismanagement and vote Democrat this Fall.

However, questions must be asked. Can only politicians impact price or might other factors explain the increase? If politicians are to blame, might a politician other than Bush be responsible?

Market forces and events impact price. 9/11 happened on W's watch and had such an impact. But unless W generated more US hatred in 8 months than Clinton did in 8 years, you cannot conclude price changes after 9/11 were Bush's fault. They may not be Clinton's but they sure aren't Bush's. Yet for Leftist coalition members like Unions, there are no market explanations. It's all political! Where is the Union's objective consideration of the impact of market forces? They offer only political solutions. It doesn't have to be true, just effective. How does misrepresenting the issue serve their members?

If, however, we assume politicians can impact the market, why assume only the Executive branch can? According to Energy Information Administration data, graphing gas's price over time yields interesting results. From 01/01 when Bush took office to 01/07, when Democrats took back Congress, the price of a gallon of gas went from $1.49 to just $2.29. That's just an $0.80 p/gal increase over 6 years! This time frame includes 9/11 ($1.56 in 09/01), the Gulf War ($1.73 in 03/03) and Hurricane Katrina ($2.95 in 09/05)! There were several drops in price during that time. Once the price actually fell below the $1.49 starting price! However, from 01/07 to today the price rose from $2.29 per gallon to $4.11! Almost a $2 per gallon increases in 18 months! 150% worse performance in 25% of the time! There was one dip in price which never neared the starting price! What event marks this time period? Democrats regained control of Congress. So why doesn't the sign read “When Democrats took office gas was $2.29”? Leftists cannot have it both ways. In 2000 they charged Bush was in bed with Big Oil. During the '06 elections, Democrats again blamed Bush for high gas prices and vowed to fix it if only we'd elect them. Americans fell for the lie and Democrats were voted in. How have they performed?

It's actually worse since Congress could reduce the cost of gas tomorrow if they'd rescind the federal tax on gas. All Americans would benefit, including Union members. But it isn't about helping Americans, unionized or not. It's about power for Democrats and their Union allies. If access to tax dollars to dole out is reduced, the Left loses power. It's unlikely Democrats would permit that to happen.

But the real tragedy is not that Unions and Democrats are selling out the country for personal gain. It is that misdirecting the people's attention away from the real reasons for high fuel prices guarantees the problem will not be fixed. Is this really the sort of representation Americans need in Union halls and legislatures? It cannot be said too many times. The Left says they are for the common man. But their actions say different. Despite deceptive signs, it's actions, not words, which mean the most.

Perhaps Americans will reconsider voting for the Left in November. They may want to reconsider union management votes as well. Gas may not cost less in the short run but there will be people interested in fixing the problem in office. Elected officials, union and governmental, who care enough to tell you the truth.

Thinking that's a good sign, both for unions and for government ...

Blue Collar Muse

One thing I love about my job is that I get to travel. Over the last couple of months I've been in Plains States and Mountain States. One of the prettiest and friendliest places I've visited is Denver, CO. Not only are the people great but the Downtown 16th Street Walking Mall and LoDo are fantastic, the capitol is beautiful and the mountains are, of course, exquisite!

Even Denver International Airport (DIA) is cool with its stylized snowcapped mountain peaks and all. One of the best features of DIA, however, is free WiFi at the airport! So far, DIA is the largest airport I've found providing that service and all one need do is watch a commercial or two and endure a permanent banner ad. I'll gladly pony up that price for the ability to work and surf while waiting on my flight. Plus, after the ordeal of TSA screening, it seems somehow proper I should get a reward for being a good boy. But am I really all that good? Opinions seem to vary.

You see, earlier this week, on my way to Montana (also an incredibly beautiful state), I had occasion to again pass through DIA and, as I was packing my laptop, spent some time on the web. While checking email and catching up on some reading, I decided to see what the folks at The Next Right were talking about and that's when it happened. Evidently I'm not the good boy I thought. Seems I've been associating with undesirables, malcontents and rabble-rousers - you know - bloggers! And when I entered http://thenextright.com in the address bar, I got the following message:

Notification Bad Reputation Your request to URL "http://thenextright.com/" has been blocked by TrustedSource. The Web reputation score of this URL is 127, which is not allowed by your administrator at this time. generated 25/Jun/2008:21:17:01 -0600

The Next Right is banned in Denver? Who knew??? I'll bet Media Matters in Colorado is turning handsprings! I know Ruffini, Dayton and Henke can get a bit testy at times. I know TNR diarists, including myself, surrender to the temptation to engage in a bit of snark on occasion. But "Bad Reputation"? In the first place, TNR hasn't been around long enough yet to acquire a reputation bad enough to warrant being banned by any source, "Trusted" or otherwise! In the second place, just exactly who is "TrustedSource" and what is their reputation? Who exactly is it that trusts them to tell me who I should trust? Banning TNR isn't inspiring a lot of trust and confidence in me. Is there a place I can go to ban them?

But the ban set me to wondering. Why was TNR banned. Am I missing something? I thought I was on the inside track with these guys. I joined TNR early and post often. Have I not met Jon Henke personally? Did I not grieve at the treatment Soren received from the powers that be? Do I not abase myself before Ruffini in all things techie? Have I been excluded from a special page at TNR that that all the really cool bloggers get access to? Perhaps they're selling calendars featuring pictures of the TNR trio brandishing their keyboards in a menacing fashion above the caption "Armed and Dangerous"! Airports do seem to be more security conscious these days! Maybe the guys aren't wearing shirts in their calendar pics, although Soren as "Mr. June" in a pic like that might actually be enough to warrant a ban (no disrespect intended to the tastes of any current or future Mrs. Soren) .

Of one thing, however, I am absolutely certain. The actual content of the site had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the ban. This is America and no one would think to ban TNR, or any other site, for being a place where folks exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech. There's no way being a tolerant repository of a wide variety of ideas, thought and strategy would get a site banned. It's comforting to know some things are still legal and acceptable, even on the Internet. But that still sheds no light on the reason for the ban.

And what's with the score of 127? Didn't government schools teach us high scores were a good thing? For most of us TNR diarists, 127 will likely be the best score we ever get on any test and should be something to be proud of. I'm thinking of having a t-shirt made up saying, "Jon, Patrick, Soren and I scored 127 at DIA!" or maybe "I went to Denver and all I got was banned and this lousy t-shirt!" In any event, both a few neighbors back home and the parents of a couple of ladies I wooed in my misspent youth have been vindicated. They noted, correctly it would seem, I would likely not amount to much as a direct result of hanging around with the wrong crowd. "A pity!" they told me, "So much potential being wasted!" Who knew that after 35 years spent trying to prove them wrong, I'd be tripped up by hanging around with respectable Washington insiders. I suppose I should have known. I wonder if I'll get time off for good blogging behavior?

Blue Collar Muse

In his first real chance to speak to an issue with seriousness and substance, Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama demonstrated the truth of the charge leveled against him that he is all flash and no bang. The Right has known this from the beginning and the Left has feared it might be true for just as long. Obama can sway a crowd like the worst stereotypical tent revival preacher. He can promise a moon he knows he can't deliver as well as any politician from any party. And he can stay on message as long as no one is asking too many difficult questions. It's this last part that may be his undoing for this election. If Obama cannot do a better job of crafting and explaining his vision for America than he is doing on Energy, he will prove to be his own worst enemy. Consider the following.

Obama says we cannot drill our way out of the mess we are in. I'm curious how he has arrived at that conclusion. For starters, how does he know? Have we tried it? His too ready dismissal of Right of Center ideas is more partisan than practical and may give lie to his credentials as a uniter. Basic Economics tells us the more there is of something, the less it costs. Surely Obama doesn't believe his words alone can change Economic reality.

Perhaps he means drilling will not immediately impact our fuel costs. That statement at least has the possibility of being true. It is also a foolish argument against drilling. In the first place, it means there really is a value to drilling. It's just not an immediate value. It also means the statement, "We can't drill our way out of this!" is false. We can drill our way out of this tomorrow or on one of the many tomorrows headed our way. It just remains to be determined how many tomorrows it will take. But we can drill our way out. In the second place, if there is a benefit to drilling to be derived at some future point, then let's get started! The sooner we begin, the sooner we'll enjoy the results. We may have to do other things in the meantime but let's not ignore a benefit just because it doesn't impact the economy until later. This is tradtional Democratic short sighted thinking at its worst. Do whatever you can to deliver a benefit this afternoon and let the long term chips fall where they may. Operating on the same premise, we would not have built railroads or Interstates because they didn't fix the transportation problems immediately. What do you mean it will be years before we can go from New York to Los Angeles by train?

So much for the drilling solutions Obama rejects. What about the ideas Obama wants to pursue? His solution to high fuel costs is not to increase Supply, it's to reduce Demand. That would actually be a legitimate approach to the problem, IF, Obama could actually control Demand. What Demand is it Obama thinks he will be able to reduce? The only one he has a shot at is US Demand. If, however, his plan is to only reduce US Demand he'll play right into the Right's hands. He'll be vulnerable to charges he's hurting American interests and strengthening foreign interests. Again, that's a legitimate strategy. It's just not one usually found emanating from the Oval Office.

The biggest challenge to his plan to reduce Demand is the limited ability he has to implement a reduction in Demand outside the US. The inconvenient truth for Obama is that the Demand driving up the cost of crude and products made from it is a global Demand. While the US uses more oil than any other nation, increases in demand for oil are not coming from the US market. It's coming from China and India in particular, along with many other nations as they strive to continue and increase their economic expansions with all of its attendant prosperity. Any reduction in Demand from the US market would either not impact global Demand at all or would be quickly swallowed up as global Demand outpaces US reductions. Oil on the world market would continue to cost more and more while we will have given up contracts and agreements that keep crude and fuel flowing our way first. Selfish? Perhaps. It's the way the game is played by everyone. The sooner Obama realizes this the better.

The bottom line to Obama's position is it weakens the US instead of strengthening the country. The problem is reduced energy availability, not increased demand. There are very different outcomes depending on the strategy one uses to combat it. Increasing Supply is a solution that depends on a few entities (oil companies) acting in their self interest. Reducing Demand is a solution that depends on the many (every American) acting against their own self interest. More to the point, while it may be in their long term interest to reduce Demand, Americans will behave just as Obama is behaving and choose what benefits them most now and ignore later. Obama personally rejects proven, long term strategies in favor of untested ideas he claims will fix the problem quickly. But when it comes to how you should behave, he wants you to reject the short term strategies and think in terms of years. He's shilling against drilling and willing to let America pay the price. Just one more reason Obama is wrong on the issues and wrong for America.

Blue Collar Muse

So, I got this letter late last week from the IRS. The only thing worse would have been to hear Mike Wallace and the "60 Minutes" crew were filming on my front lawn. Come to think of it, even that may not be worse ...

The letter was computer generated, thanking me for my recent correspondence with them. It said they had not responded yet as they had not finished preparing a "complete response" and that it would be forthcoming within 45 days. It reminded me the installment agreement I agreed to for payment of my taxes was still in effect and I should still make my scheduled payments. It even helpfully included an 800# I could call if I had any questions.

It was a polite, encouraging and downright personable piece of communication. But there was one teensy-weensy lil' problem. I had not recently corresponded with them for any reason other than to mail a check on April 14 for the entire amount of the taxes they wanted from me. There was no installment agreement agreed to and no scheduled payments. Had this been a business like a credit card company saying I had not paid my bill, I wouldn't worry. I'd just call their 800# and get this straightened out. Did I mention this letter was from the IRS?

Still, it was such a NICE letter and they had included an 800#. I called on Saturday but they were closed. To be fair, I don't remember if they were closed because it was Saturday, allowing taxpayers across the country to breathe more easily, or if I just called after hours on Saturday. Regardless I didn't speak to the nice folks at the IRS that day. I laid the letter in my inbox to call this week. Yesterday, I saw the letter and decided I had the time to spend on hold and to deal with any bureaucratic red tape. I dialed the phone.

After about 15 minutes on hold, a nice lady answered, giving me her name and ID#. I explained about the letter and that there was an important looking reference number at the very top which I felt sure linked to a file with all my details in it and we could get this taken care of quickly. The nice IRS lady told me, "No, I don't need that. What's your Social Security number?" I gave it to her and she explained we would have to do a quick Q&A to establish my identity. 5 minutes later we agreed that I was me.

She asked why I was calling. I explained about the letter and the 45 days and the installment agreement and that I didn't recall doing any of those things. The nice IRS lady told me, "According to my screen, you're right. You don't owe any tax, we've released your stimulus package payment and there's no installment agreement!" Relieved, I said, "Great! So you'll take care of this for me?" She helpfully said, "I sure will. I'll just send an email to the person who sent you the letter and have him call you. It will be sometime in the next 30 days. He'll need to make sure this is not a mistake on our part. Where can he reach you?"

I asked to contact the person myself. I explained my concern that, if it took the full 30 days, and if the IRS decided I owed the money, there would be interest and penalties. Since, if I disputed the decision, I had to prove I didn't owe it, and not the other way around, I'd probably just pay the money. When dealing with people who can padlock your home and business, freeze your accounts and generally make life inconvenient, it is often wiser to simply pay them. It's called the "Let the Wookie win!" strategy.

The nice IRS lady assured me there was no cause for alarm. She could see on her screen I owed them nothing! When I again asked her why, if that was the case, could she not clear this up, she again told me it was to be sure that it was not a mistake on their part. I took this to mean the nice IRS lady was positive I didn't owe any money but the person sending me the letter might feel differently. After all, the letter talked about payments and agreements and such. I again expressed the desire to speak to the person who sent me the letter. The nice IRS lady said she could not give me that person's name or contact information. She could not give me his ID#. She wasn't even sure he was a he. She did have an IRS designator identifying exactly who he was but she couldn't give me that, either. But I was not to worry, she would send that email and he would contact me within 30 days.

I surprised myself with boldness and asked why the IRS provided an 800# which connected to a department completely unable to help me. The nice IRS lady gently corrected me. "But I HAVE helped you!", she said. Baffled, I asked, "You have?" "Yes", she responded, "I sent an email to the person who will contact you!" As God is my witness, I actually waited for her to continue, "Just kidding! Just a little IRS humor!" After a long moment in which she did not, in fact, admit to pulling my leg, I asked, "Do you mean this is the extent of the assistance available to me at this number, which, I feel compelled to add, the IRS itself directed me to call if I had questions?" The nice IRS lady replied in the affirmative.

I noted that, as a small business owner, if a customer might need to speak to me I simply gave them MY number. It tended to expedite things. I allowed while it was possible I might miss his call and need to call back, I would not, in fact, set up an entire department whose sole purpose was to email me that someone I thought might need me, actually did, so I could add a call back to him to my calendar sometime in the next 30 days. There being little more to be said, I wished the nice IRS lady a good afternoon and we ended the call.

This sort of inefficiency, waste and duplication is typical of big government. And yet this is the plan we have for Health Care? For Energy Independence? For Education? For Retirement? For the most important things in life? Only in government could a person be of absolutely no assistance whatsoever and, at the same time, take pride in a job well done.

I really hope my installment payments aren't too much ...

Blue Collar Muse

Few things illustrate Democrat's penchant for preying on people's fears better than Social Security. Proposing changes to Social Security produces hysteria from any Democrat near a microphone. Barack Obama is no different as evidenced by his comments earlier this week. Speaking to a crowd of retirees in Ohio,

Obama ... criticized McCain for being open to letting taxpayers invest part of their Social Security payments in private investment accounts.

"Imagine if your security now was tied up with the Dow Jones," he said, alluding to the recent slide in stock prices. "You wouldn't feel very confident about the security of your nest egg."

Senator Obama misses the point. It is not how well the stock market performs today as opposed to yesterday. There will always be ups and downs in the market and investing is for the long term. Social Security is the same. It is how well the Stock Market performs today as opposed to how well Social Security is performing today! The question Senator Obama should ask is, “Imagine if your security had been tied to the Dow Jones for the last 50 years? You'd be pretty excited about the security of your nest egg!”

Social Security, begun in 1935, is out of date. The financial world is vastly different today. Why then do we depend on an antique product? It's easier to amend the Constitution than to update Social Security. You'd think modernization would be beneficial after so long. You'd be wrong. Just one factor illustrates the problem. In 1935, the age at which one began to receive benefits was 65. This at a time when life expectancy for Americans was 62. Today the terms are the same but people live longer. No wonder the plan is going bankrupt.

In 1935, only the very wealthy owned stock in many companies at once. If a stock or a market segment went bad, the entire portfolio wasn't at risk. Today, mutual funds make that strategy available to virtually any American. It also makes Social Security an antiquated, government run Ponzi scheme. To demonstrate the difference 75 years can make, we'll use Social Security's own benefits calculator and a simple financial calculator.

Meet Sam, our less than average American. Sam began working this year, at age 16, for just $7.50 an hour, $300 a week, $1,300 a month or $15,600 a year. Sam, while quite nice, is pretty much a loser. He is so unskilled he will never get a raise. He is industrious, though, and will work for 49 years, retiring at 65. This scenario gives Sam about $1,500 per year to invest for retirement based on current Social Security rates. Let's see how he does. The actual numbers generated below will, of course, be different based on a number of factors. However, they are accurate enough to make the point.

Using Social Security's own calculator and plugging in Sam's numbers (born 1/1/1992, $15K annually to 65), his total contribution is $73,500. At retirement, Social Security will pay Sam $703 per month. This is barely over half the income he enjoyed while working. Welcome to cat food cuisine! After working 49 years at $7.50 per hour, Sam must retire on $4.50 per hour. Once Sam dies, the benefits Mrs. Sam enjoys are drastically reduced. At Mrs. Sam's death, the benefits die, too. 49 years - $73,500 and there's nothing to pass on. This is what Obama, Democrats and central planning Republicans want for Sam. If that was all there was, the saying "60% of something is better than 100% of nothing!" would apply.

But it's not. If Sam is allowed to invest his money privately the results are astounding. A simple financial calculator shows Sam's $73,500 would grow to $1,975,000 with a 10% return, $920,000 at 8%, $446,500 at 6% and $228,500 at 4%. These sums provide monthly incomes of $16,458 at 10%, $6,133 at 8%, $2,232 at 6% and $761 at 4%. Sam could earn just 4% interest for 49 years and retire with more than Social Security provides. Check with any investment broker for the actual results over the last 25 years. The ones Barack Obama is sure would have been bad for your nest egg.

I've further assumed the principal is left intact so when Sam dies, Mrs. Sam's income stays the same. When she dies, the principal passes to their two children. There's an inheritance to leave on just $15,000 a year! If we assume Mrs. Sam is the same age and does the same thing then the numbers double. $3,950,000 at 10%, 1,840,000 at 8%, $893,000 at 6% and $457,000 at 4%. Barack Obama doesn't think you should feel confident about that.

Privatization's real power is seen when we get to the kids and the grandkids. If we assume the same scenario for the kids and grandkids, by the time the grandkids retire, they are multi-millionaires, even at 4%. And they did it with 3 generations of losers who never made more than $15,000 per year.

Most folks, of course, will make more than that. So much the better! Add in US economic expansion from the infusion of that sort of capital into private enterprise and imagine the earnings potential future Sams will have. With such wealth, questions about affording health insurance and what to do with Uncle Joe who would not save for himself become memories. Americans will take care of themselves and their own. The government is out of our lives on a grand scale. Increases in government revenue insure promises made to those now on Social Security are kept.

Barack Obama won't tell you this. Why? Why don't Democrats, and too many Republicans, want Social Security privatized? Because if you don't need government, you don't need them. It's a matter of personal and political power and nothing more. Their continued insistence that Social Security can be fixed and that they are the ones to fix it is a deception. It's an appeal to your fears stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from you and your family. It's time for that to stop. It's time for someone to remind you of your dreams and tell you the truth about privatizing Social Security!

Blue Collar Muse

I remember when Bob Dole, then a recently defeated Presidential candidate, gained more national notoriety than he did in his Presidential bid by participating in an ad campaign against ED, Erectile Dysfunction.  The first blend of ED and politics, it would not be the last.  A few years later, a New ED garnered national attention.  Eminent Domain.

Old ED may be inoffensively described as the inability of an unhappy man to erect a structure for his own use on his own property.  This unfortunate situation was a private matter and left to the man and his family to correct.  Senator Dole was hawking new construction options for our property owner to consider.  New ED is similar but there are serious differences.  New ED features government unhappy with structures a man is erecting (or not) for his own use on his own property.  This unfortunate situation is being made public as government attempts to seize said property in the name of the People.

For years, the little talked about problems associated with Old ED remained unaddressed and anonymous.  No one knew which of their family or friends may have suffered from the condition's real and unfortunate side effects.  Consequences such as depression and lowered self esteem led to all manner of attempts to fix the problem.  In some cases, the problems led to divorce.  Thus, the very institution designed to address man's need to erect his structure was destroyed by his inability to do so.  Eventually, in a serendipitous accident, a solution to many of the problems presented by Old ED was discovered.  This has resulted in the widespread prescription of a little blue pill for millions of property owners around the world and interesting new career options for retired politicians.

This is where New ED and Old ED part company.  New ED is exactly that - new!  The problems associated with New ED are also new and they are anything but anonymous and unaddressed.  For the 225+ years that our nation has been in existence, the issue of ownership of private property and the rights of property owners to use their property as they see fit were clear and established.  People owned their property and the government had no authority over it.  In fact, government was often the tool used by property owners to defend their property rights.  Government, however, is a dubious partner in any enterprise and the issue of private property is no exception.  Eventually, as it always does, government sought to expand its scope and authority in the matter.

It starts innocently enough.  Governmental expansion may appear reasonable and even beneficial.  For instance, if government helps people defend their property rights, it's reasonable government needs to know who owns the property and what the property's boundaries are.  Thus plot maps and mortgages are born.  If government provides these services, it cannot do so for free.  Fees for registering said documents are also a reasonable thing.  As communities grow, government must know which properties it is responsible for and which are serviced by other governments.  City limits, township boundaries and other demarcations spring up.  These aren't free services either so property taxes, local sales taxes, excise taxes and fees spring up to fund government.  It is about here, however, where property ownership passes from citizen to government. It's the tipping point where people alone stop owning property and government becomes a joint owner.

It's tempting to think otherwise.  However, if you think you alone own your property and you are free to do with it what you will, try any of the following and see what happens.  Try selling your property without paying taxes on the sale.  Try not paying the annual property tax levied by the government on your property based on its value.  Try denying the government Assessor access to your property when he comes to see if it's worth more to you and thus qualifies for a government revenue (read tax) increase, too.  Try making improvements to your property without paying for building permits, codes inspections and the like.  There's more but you get the point.  Still think you own your own property?

Government's expansion of its role in the ownership of private property has grown to the point it is not even pretending Americans own their own property anymore.  The Constitution's framers, knowing there may arise situations in which government might need the use of property owned by individuals, provided for that in the original language of the Constitution.  Now known as 'the Takings Clause', the 5th Amendment states in part, "Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation."  This has traditionally meant government can buy, at a fair market price, property owned by a person, for public use, and the person cannot refuse to sell.  This has been used to acquire property for Interstate Highways, government buildings and the like.  While it is easy to disagree with the government's decision that this or that property should be the one selected for such a purpose, it is pretty easy to agree that the purpose for which the property is being purchased by government is, indeed, one that will benefit most or even all citizens.  The matter of price is also open to discussion but there are market guidelines that make that task much easier.

That situation applies no longer.  The recent Supreme Court Kelo v New London, CT decision destroyed any pretense that Executive or Judicial branches of government would abide by Constitutional constraints.  New London, CT did not argue government had a better use for the property than the owners.  The government did not argue there was a use for the property providing a specific benefit for its citizens.  The government argued the property owners' taxes were low based on their use of the property.  It argued that deflating the property's value by condemning it; seizing it from the Kelo family and giving it to private developers for $1 with a 99 year lease would increase tax revenues by putting the land to a different use.  Since those taxes would be spent on the community, this seizure of property was justified under the Takings Clause.

Many governments have passed legislation specifically preventing this unconstitutional seizing of private property but it is unclear such laws will stand if challenged based on the Kelo precedent.  Despite some governments behaving well, others have not.  In truth, no American is safe from government ordering him to move because it wants his property for itself.  The New ED creates the scenario wherein the institution designed to protect a man's right to erect his structure is now a weapon used against him.  The protector has become a plunderer.

Unlike Old ED, there will be no accidental scientific fix.  New ED will be eradicated when Americans choose to reclaim their constitutional rights and responsibilities.  We must trust ourselves and our neighbors more than those in government when making decisions about our property.  We must reject the idea government is our source and reclaim the notion we are responsible for ourselves and have specific rights, including to own property.  And we must be willing to defend our Right to private property ownership by exercising our other Rights as needed.  The Right to Free Speech, to Assemble, of the Press and perhaps even to Keep and Bear Arms will be needed to stem the encroachment of government on our Rights.

One can only hope a new politician will rise up (pun intended), like Bob Dole did, with a solution that returns the power and authority to solve the problem to the individual.  If not, the New ED will lead to the same result failure to fix Old ED would have led to; the disappearance of Citizens.  In the case of Old ED, citizens would have disappeared as fewer new citizens were born.  In the case of New ED it will be that our citizens disappear as they are transformed into slaves.

Blue Collar Muse

Recently, the Tennessee State Board of Education ruled diplomas issued to home-schooled students from religious based schools were invalid as proof of the successful completion of High School should it be presented for employment purposes for a job for which state law requires a diploma. You read that right. According to the State Board of Education, all diplomas are equal but some diplomas are more equal than others. According to Tennessee ConserVOLiance blogger Red Hat Rob,

... anyone from a public school (or a private accredited school) who presents a diploma in order to be hired as a daycare worker, police officer, fireman (or any other position which state law requires a high school diploma for) will be automatically accepted. Anyone who presents a homeschool diploma will be automatically rejected.

The Board of Education's rationale is since they had no input over the curricula which resulted in the diploma, they won't recognize the diploma since they don't know what it represents. For instance, the diploma could mean only that the student had 12 years of school yet cannot read well enough to complete an employment application and will need remedial classes for his first year of college. But there's a problem. It's nicely pointed out by Red Hat Rob.

I have some news for the Department of Education officials. When a public school graduate presents a diploma, no one has any way to tell what it represents either. Did the ertswhile young graduate have an A average or a D- average? There is no minimum GPA requirement for graduation from a public high school in Tennessee.

Education has always been a prime subject for measurement. I'm not particularly opposed to that since I'm a big believer in rewarding individual effort if it's successful and working to improve performance if it isn't. To do that it is vital we know how well a particular person is doing in the skill we're measuring. The Tennessee Board of Education and Red Hat Rob are both right on one thing. The presentation of a diploma is no measure of a student's learning or ability. It only means the student has completed 12 grades. For that reason, Big Education has always touted certain metrics as being indicative of the success or failure of educators in providing a quality education. High on the list of metrics is ACT scores. They are useful for group comparisons as opposed to individual successes or failures. Red Hat Rob refers us to the ACT itself, which reports in ACT News, that in 2007, the national average score on the ACT was 21.2. The average score for High Scool grads in Tennessee was 20.7. That makes Tennessee students just a little less than average as a group. While that figure is a composite of home educated, privately educated and governmentally educated students who took the test, it generally may be taken to mean that Tennessee's Board of Education is willing to accept as satisfactory a diploma that represents a slightly less than average education. What would be really interesting is examining data that broke down the different groups based on performance. How do government schools compare to home schools, for example? Fortunately we have just such a comparison available. Red Hat Rob refers us to a report from the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), an official site of the United States Department of Education, which has such numbers from 1998. An ERIC digest titled 'The Scholastic Achievement of Home Schooled Students' from September of 1999 found the following:

Almost 25% of home school students were enrolled one or more grades above their age-level peers in public and private schools. Home school student achievement test scores were exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade (typically in the 70th to 80th percentile) were well above those of public and Catholic/Private school students. On average, home school students in grades 1 to 4 performed one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests. Students who had been home schooled their entire academic life had higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who had also attended other educational programs.

It further found,

Even with a conservative analysis of the data, the achievement levels of the home school students in the study were exceptional. Within each grade level and each skill area, the median scores for home school students fell between the 70th and 80th percentile of students nationwide and between the 60th and 70th percentile of Catholic/Private school students. For younger students, this is a one year lead. By the time home school students are in 8th grade, they are four years ahead of their public/private school counterparts. The results are consistent with previous studies of the achievement of home school students.

Addressing our question of ACT scores, a long standing metric for determining academic success, the digest reports,

Home school students did quite well in 1998 on the ACT college entrance examination. They had an average ACT composite score of 22.8 which is .38 standard deviations above the national ACT average of 21.0 (ACT,1998).This places the average home school student in the 65th percentile of all ACT test takers.

What was the ACT composite score for Tennessee students for 1998? In the year homeschoolers averaged 22.8 and the national average was 21.0, Tennessee's students scored just 19.8, a full 3 points below home schoolers. This put Tennessee ahead of only North and South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana and Washington DC. The composite home school score places them FIRST among the 51 jurisdictions represented in the study. Unfortunately, the digest attempts to downplay the astounding statistics noting,

The superior performance of home school students on achievement tests can easily be misinterpreted. This study does not demonstrate that home schooling is superior to public or private schools. It should not be cited as evidence that our public schools are failing. It does not indicate that children will perform better academically if they are home schooled. The design of this study and the data do not warrant such claims. All the comparisons of home school students with the general population and with the private school population in this report fail to consider a myriad of differences between home school and public school students. We have no information as to what the achievement levels of home school students would be had they been enrolled in public or private schools. This study only shows that a large group of parents choosing to make a commitment to home schooling were able to provide a very successful academic environment.

In essence, it says the digest reports home school students outperform government school students by significant margins. They do so throughout their academic careers. They do so measured any way you choose, including standardized tests. They do so consistently as reported in studies covering a variety of samples, locations and times. But ERIC concludes home schools are not superior to government schools. It only demonstrates " ... home schooling [provides] a very successful academic environment." I only attended government schools but even I can read between those lines and discern the truth. Tennessee's Board of Education is going with the government line "Home schooling must be automatically rejected since we don't know what they've learned" and "Government schools must be accepted since we know what they've learned." Unfortunately, State educators missed the widely available and easily located studies and reports that prove them wrong. They didn't do their homework. Or perhaps they missed the lesson on how to do a research paper. We shouldn't hold it against them, though. They probably went to government schools, too. Blue Collar Muse

In 1998, the several states which comprise our grand experiment in representative democracy found themselves on the receiving end of a windfall!! After years of abuse and under threat of continued litigation financed from the state's deep pockets, the tobacco industry made peace with its enemies.

It was an easy choice considering the alternative was to be destroyed by government. Consider that in 1964 Big Tobacco was required by government to put warning labels on its product telling people cigarettes would be bad for them if they chose to smoke. Next, it was forbidden by government from advertising its legal product on TV. The last TV ad for cigarettes appeared on The Tonight Show on 1/1/71 Later still, it was forbidden to even market tobacco in and to certain segments of the population. Joe Camel and Winston's 31 year history with NASCAR both withered and died. Government is still gunning for the tobacco Industry. Just in the last year, government has outlawed smoking in public places such as restaurants and stores here in Tennessee and elsewhere.

However, the unquestionable high point of government's offensive against Big Tobacco arrived November 23, 1998. The end results of Big Tobacco's product in the lives of willing and informed consumers was deemed so detrimental to the well being of the states that the industry itself was held accountable for the havoc their product wrought. Big tobacco was required to pay almost $250 billion to the states over 25 years in a settlement

...intended to cover past Medicaid costs from smoking-related illnesses in exchange for immunity for the tobacco companies from further state- sponsored lawsuits.

Such rulings are a perversion of justice. But they are typical of big government's abuse of power. In this case, state government - with Tennessee ranked among the worst in the matter. On the one hand, we just passed a law which outlawed smoking in most public places. On the other hand, we also just tripled the cigarette tax to fund Education! Thus we're funding a program for which the state continually wants more money with a revenue stream the state is trying to destroy. But we can trust the government on this. Just look at what a great job they're doing.

Well, let's consider the Tobacco Settlement funds, shall we? As noted, the money was intended to help states cover costs they incurred while dealing with health problems associated with tobacco use. But that's not happening. Not in Tennessee and not anywhere else that I can find either. According to The Tennessean, Tennessee is slighting lung cancer. In fact,

The $1.4 billion in tobacco settlement money that Tennessee has received since 2000 has gone into the general fund, paying for everything from state troopers' salaries to computers in schools. None of that money has been earmarked for lung cancer research.

A billion and a half dollars extorted from tobacco companies under threat of being sued into non-existence by the states. The states claim they are acting in the best interests of the people. Big Tobacco agrees to pay billions to offset the costs of past smoking and to fund state prevention programs. What do the states do? They do what unaccountable, irresponsible and out of control government always does - whatever they think they can get away with. Tennessee receives millions annually for state health concerns and spends nothing on it. Our neighbor to the north, Kentucky, is lauded for spending $35 million on lung cancer research since 2001. $5 million a year when they get well over $100 million. And Kentucky may be one of the good guys!

Quoting from The Tennessean again,

Because there are no restrictions on how states spend tobacco settlements, money that other states receive also often goes toward just about everything but research, said Laurie Fenton Ambrose, president and chief executive officer of the Lung Cancer Alliance, a D.C.-based advocacy group. "We are astounded that this could be so overlooked, and are actively advocating for those resources to assist victims of this disease," Ambrose said.

One would think that the states, which knew enough a decade ago to be concerned about the emerging health crisis they faced from smoking that they piled on on Big Tobacco, would also be smart enough to use this "found money" to address the issue directly. But we're dealing with government here. The Tennessean adds:

For a state in which roughly one in four adults smokes, Tennessee has been notoriously bad about funding tobacco prevention programs. But Danny McGoldrick, Tobacco Free Kids' vice president for research, said that this year he applauds Tennessee for being "most improved." Tennessee put $10 million of budget money toward tobacco prevention for the first time ever this fiscal year.The money funded programs such as the smoking cessation hot line, 1-800-QUIT-NOW, and nicotine replacement therapies for the uninsured. McGoldrick also lauded the state's new tax increase on cigarettes and the smoking ban in most public places. "Last year was a big improvement, after years of doing virtually nothing," McGoldrick said. Previously, Tobacco Free Kids ranked Tennessee 51st, among all states and the District of Columbia, for its tobacco-prevention efforts. But the new initiatives bumped Tennessee up to 34th this year. Tobacco Free Kids will present Gov. Phil Bredesen with its "champion award" in a few weeks for leading the efforts.

This is success? This is government for the people? No. This is typical government fraud, waste and abuse. Citizens ought to be nauseated. But we accept calling it "improvement". We spend $10 million of our $1.5 billion on a stop smoking program and our Governor gets a "Champion" award. Meanwhile, the other 49 states' efforts are so equally pathetic our non efforts move us up 17 places in ranking and earn us the title "most improved". Only to government bureaucrats is this success. Each Tennessean should call his representatives and demand fiscal responsibility in this matter.

 This year alone, Tennessee is due to receive almost $160 million from Big Tobacco. By the time the 25 year payout period is up, we are due to receive almost $5 billion dollars. It is supposed to be to protect our health. It is supposed to be to help educate us. It is supposed to help us stop smoking. If we, the citizens of Tennessee, permit this fraud, waste and abuse to continue then I have to ask how healthy our priorities really are; what we are really learning from what they are teaching, and; what in the world are we really smoking in the Volunteer State?

 Blue Collar Muse