LowDownCentral

Getting Out of the Red to China

2012-02-01T12:01:01Z

by Lance Thompson

The cost of China’s widespread and long-standing cyber espionage campaign on American interests was addressed in an article in the 27 January Wall Street Journal. Former Director of National Security Mike McConnell, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn cited the October 2011 report to Congress by the National Counterespionage Executive. The report estimated that “catastrophic impact of cyber espionage” by communist China, including cyber attacks on our national defenses, stealing classified information, violating patents and infringing copyright, have cost the American economy billions of dollars and millions of jobs.

To finance the unprecedented deficit spending of the Obama administration, the United States borrows 40 cents on every dollar it spends. This debt is not only a dangerous drag on American productivity, it could easily trigger the destruction of the economy. Much of this debt is owed to communist China.

Fortunately, these two alarming conditions suggest a convenient remedy. In view of the staggering cost of Chinese cyber attacks, the United States government should levy a fine against communist China equal to the amount of our debt to communist China.

Cyber attacks are very difficult to defend against, and their costs are only evident long after the crime has been committed. There are rarely consequences to the attacker, since the trail of evidence is beclouded in cyberspace. Thus, the victim has very few options. He can complain diplomatically, he can retaliate, or he can demand restitution.

Diplomatic complaints to communist China have an unbroken record of ineffectiveness. From human rights violations to currency manipulation to military intimidation, China has no history of responding positively to diplomatic entreaties. Further, doing so would merely be an admission of guilt, another gesture unfamiliar to communist China.

Retaliation could occur in many forms. We could retaliate in kind, and use cyber attacks to steal Chinese secrets, copy Chinese technology, violate Chinese patents and copyright. But one look at their new stealth fighter or commercial aircraft or automobiles will tell you that their most advanced concepts look like ours. We would learn nothing from them other than what they took from us.

On the other end of the continuum is retaliation by force. Military action is seldom justified by economic provocation, and the United States has always been reluctant to break that precedent. The middle ground is occupied by economic sanctions, but China trades with the world now, and we certainly can’t bring much pressure to bear as they stand behind a bulwark of American IOU’s.

That leaves restitution. It is the fairest, surest, least explosive means to redressing the crimes that China has been perpetrating for years against the American government and private industry. It is a simple matter between two countries–ours and the Chinese. We don’t require the cooperation or permission of any other nation or collection of nations. We have been wronged, and we will apply an appropriate sanction.

There will be protests far and wide, some even from people in this country. But those who protest should have done so while China was waging cyber war against us. Because we have allowed it to continue, the communist Chinese assume that we will endure this attack without reaction, and they will continue to enjoy the benefits of this one-sided war.

China has financed our reckless spending, and we have given them power over us and our economy. But if they ignore the rules of behavior between civilized nations, then we should adopt the same attitude. We should cancel our debt to China as a penalty for their cybe attacks against us. By doing so, we set an example to the world that attacks of any kind, even in cyberspace, will not be tolerated.

State of the Union 2013

2012-01-26T12:00:06Z

by Lance Thompson

Reaction to the President’s State of the Union speech has been as predictable as the speech itself, split along the usual partisan lines. But Obama’s next one, to be given after the 2012 election, figures to be a game-changer, and here’s an exclusive early look at what it will include:

Good evening. And a special welcome to the many outgoing Democrat congressmen and senators. I know you blame me for the staggering losses our party suffered in the last election. The good news is, you and I have pensions for life. Incidentally, that’s almost as long as the new, long-term unemployment extension we passed during the lame duck session. The bad news is, we’ll have to borrow the money to pay for those programs from Uruguay.

I want to thank each and every American who voted for me, especially the record numbers who did so posthumously. I only wish you had voted more often.

I want to take a moment to look back on our achievements. We passed a national health care program. I know the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional last summer, but remember, the law was on the books almost long enough for an average American to read the entire 1300-pages of that law.

I stopped the Keystone pipeline, hobbled the domestic energy industry, and made worldwide oil reserves available to the Chinese. I think we can all see the results in reduced traffic at the drive-through and increased sales of bicycles and skateboards. I know a gallon of unleaded will now set you back twelve bucks, but the good news is, you can now pay for that gas with food stamps.

The size of our military is now one tenth what is was when I took office, and we are engaged in no foreign wars. Sure, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Maui are now colonies of the People’s Republic of China. Yes, Mexican drug cartels have surrounded the Alamo. And, admittedly, the number of rogue states with nuclear weapons has grown exponentially to include Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Luxembourg and Solyndra..

But we’re not economizing on our security. I have doubled the number of TSA airport security officers, and authorized them to conduct strip searches on anyone who even drives past the airport.

Thanks to bailouts and takeovers during my administration, the government now owns 45% of private businesses in this nation. We have had a 98% success rate in running those businesses into the ground. By the way, I don’t agree with critics who say that including permanent Obama 2012 bumper stickers on all new GM cars was responsible for that auto company’s plummeting sales.

The best news is that this nation, struggling with unsustainable debt, massive unemployment, declining international prestige and influence, and worthless currency is not my problem anymore. Since the election, the Republicans are in charge, so we can go back to blaming them.

(Since it is not customary for the outgoing President to deliver a State of the Union address, Mr. Obama will deliver his remarks on the ABC program “The View” immediately following the Harry Reid aerobics segment and the Nancy Pelosi cooking demonstration.)

Obama Closes the Arsenal of Democracy

2012-01-10T12:00:48Z

by Lance Thompson

Communist China is building a naval aviation program around its new aircraft carrier and cranking out new submarines at the rate of two per year. Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, forbids American ships from returning to the Persian Gulf, and is building an ICBM base in Venezuela. Waves of bombings mark the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. North Korea and Iran are on the verge of fielding nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. In this time of crisis, international tension and threats from every corner of the globe, President Obama naturally responds by cutting half a trillion dollars from the military budget of the United States.

The excuse Obama offered for this lunacy (and offered at the Pentagon, to add insult to inanity) is that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are “winding down” and that there is no longer a need for the powerful military we’ve had since President Reagan rebuilt it. Obama, whose administration has spent more than all previous administrations combined, pointed to the need to save money, and fully intends to do that at the expense of our nation’s defenses.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the new strategy would be to focus on Asia and the Middle East, then identified the high cost of providing health care for military personnel as a reason for the cutbacks in other areas of defense. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey characterized the traditional requirement that theUnited States maintain a force able to fight two major wars at the same time as outdated, and “a bit of an anchor, frankly.”

These decisions and comments come from an administration that only recently had five conflicts cooking–Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Obama has shown a willingness to commit troops without congressional approval or even the slightest indication of American interests at stake. But now he evidently believes that he can “turn the page on a decade of war” and ignore the ever-spreading threats we face around the globe.

Panetta also said that defense cuts “must be driven by strategy and...not be driven by numbers alone.” But it is clear that the size and capabilities of American armed forces will determine and limit the missions they can undertake. In none of the conflicts mentioned above was the United States engaged with a nuclear power. A few years ago, when our political leaders actually put the nation’s safety first, our military prepared to confront the major states who opposed us. We created strategies and plans and weapons to counter a Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe, a Communist Chinese takeover of Taiwan, or nuclear strikes from any of the growing number of rogue nations eager to join the nuclear club. Now, however, the Obama administration hopes to avoid the danger of fire by reducing the number of fire departments.

Obama has been consistent in his three years as president. He has followed fiscal, judicial, legislative and military policies that have weakened, constrained and threatened our nation. So this recent decision should come as no surprise. It only remains to be seen how this country’s enemies will exploit yet another retreat from America’s greatness by this president.

The Magnificent Seven?

2011-12-12T12:00:26Z

by Lance Thompson

The Magnificent Seven, now considered a classic Western, wasn't a hit when it was released in 1960. Based on Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai, this allegorical tale was transplanted to the southern border of the American frontier and populated with a stellar cast of manly actors--Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, James Coburn, Robert Vaughn and Eli Wallach as the leader of the predatory bandit band that terrorizes a small Mexican village. In view of Hollywood’s enthusiasm for sequels and our current political situation, I believe the time is right for a remake.

In the original film, the peaceful farmers of the Mexican village are all hard-working and able to support themselves. For the remake, recast in the villagers’ roles would be the American middle class. They are self-reliant, industrious, and uncomplaining. They are the settlers, the providers, the builders of their community.

The villagers are regularly raided by the bandit Calvera and his gang of thieves. They take anything of value, from produce to poultry, leaving only enough to allow the villagers to subsist and produce more goods for the taking. The villagers are beyond the help of the law--Calvera makes the rules. When one villager suggests hiding a little extra from the raiders, another says, "Calvera never takes everything. He always leaves us something." Calvera would be played by Barack Obama in the new version, and the bandits by his administration's tax collectors, law makers and appointed czars. They prey upon the middle class, taking an ever greater share of their wealth while placing restrictions on how they produce it, what they can do with it, and how much of the proceeds they can keep.

The villagers realize they cannot permit their children to grow up under this brutal system, and decide that they must fight. They are not powerful enough to resist Calvera by themselves, so they hire seven gunfighters to rid them of the bandits. In the remake, those who decide to find champions would be the Tea Party, scouring the land for real conservatives to turn back the liberal tide.

The gunfighters are all loners, and each takes the job for his own reasons. They are warrior entrepreneurs, offering services that are valued by others. Some live by a strict personal code, others hope to make a profit, one just to make a name for himself. On a lawless frontier, they are the only hope against marauding bandits. The gunfighters are the GOP candidates, each one seeking the nomination for his own reasons, but all standing up to a confiscatory power that ordinary people cannot resist.

After being turned away in the first battle, Calvera does not relent. The gunfighters learn that Calvera and his band cannot support themselves. They can't afford to lose--the village's modest earnings are their sole means of survival. Similarly, the government knows it cannot exist without the wealth generated by the private sector. As the government has gone from a guarantor of our freedoms to a parasite on our earnings, its increasing size and appetite require ever greater sacrifices from the American people.

When it is clear that the bandits will not give up, some villagers lose heart and want to submit to Calvera's demands. They think it would be better to serve a cruel and capricious master than perish. These parts would be played by liberals who believe that only the government can ensure people's well-being, and no price is too high to pay. Ultimately, a majority faction in the village turns against the gunfighters, and sends them away, just as a majority of Americans embraced Obama and servitude to the government in 2008.

But the gunfighters don't give up. They regroup, ride back into town, and challenge the bandits. At first, it seems an impossible task--they are outnumbered and outgunned. But they are determined to defeat the bandits, knowing the odds are against them.

Likewise, conservatives in November will challenge an overreaching, overintrusive, overdrawn government supported by the mainstream media and all those who long to be wards of the state.

Will the villagers surrender their freedom and their livelihood to Calvera? Will they trust their lives and their children's futures to his promises to be fair and benevolent? Or will they join the gunfighters to rid themselves of their oppressors, though the price of freedom may be high?

I won’t give away the ending of the original. How the remake comes out is up to all of us.

The Letter O

2011-10-24T11:00:26Z

by Lance Thompson

In his upcoming book "Ten Letters," Eli Saslow, a reporter for the Washington Post, informs readers that President Obama has staffers select ten out of the hundreds of letters he gets each day to provide a representative sampling of American public opinion.

Saslow states that sometimes Obama feels "powerless" to help ordinary Americans, and on occasion has been known to respond in person and enclose a check to the correspondent, or make a phone call to fix a problem. Many cynical critics of the president doubt this, as Obama himself is the only source for this story. None of the many recipients of Obama checks has yet come forward.

But this story does not sound far-fetched to me. Examples of Obama’s largesse are many and verified. There is no reason to doubt this account. In fact, I can well imagine the conversation between Obama and his letter czar.

LC: "Mr. President, here is a heartbreaking letter from a major Democratic contributor and Solyndra investor."

O: "Send him half a billion."

LC: "This one is from a member of the New Black Panthersaccused of voter intimidation in Philadelphia."

O: "I’ll call Eric tomorrow."

LC: "This one seems to be about a hybrid car company that’s struggling to save the planet. But it’s all in Finnish."

O: "Send half a billion. Dollars–not euros."

LC: "This one is from a Tea Party member who was beaten and run over by union reps at a right-to-work rally."

O: "That’s enough for today. We have to draw the line somewhere."

Occupy Busch Stadium

2011-10-11T11:00:30Z

by Lance Thompson

The Occupy movement widened significantly today with the formation of "Occupy Busch Stadium," an ad-hoc group dedicated to redistributing the wealth, opportunity and rewards of professional sports.

Exploiting the attention paid to the World Series, the OBS has demanded fairness from Major League Baseball. Highest on their agenda is income redistribution for baseball players everywhere. Statistics show that the top one hundredth of one percent of people who have ever played baseball make 99.98% of the money paid to baseball players. A handful of players who are fortunate enough to make it to the big leagues--such as Alex Rodriguez, Vernon Wells, and CC Sabathia–make multi-million dollar salaries while people who play exactly the same game in back yards and in local sandlots make little or nothing. OBS simply demands fairness–all baseball salaries to be placed in a pool and the funds distributed equally among all baseball players in the nation.

A major cause of income inequity in baseball is the unfair selection process for major league teams. The prejudicial system that requires prospective players to participate in the game for years, constantly training and developing skills, is designed to keep those of limited ability, ambition and dedication out of the majors. OBS has created a new opportunity network that ensures that every person who has an interest in playing baseball for a major league team will get that chance. Of course, the system is expected to be oversubscribed at first, so most people will be limited to a lifetime maximum of one inning, or one stand at the plate, but at least everyone can participate.

Another aspect of major league baseball that smacks of elitism is the inequality of baseball scores, a primary cause of a few top teams getting into the playoffs while the majority are left behind. Working with experts at the United Nations, OBS has developed a home run redistribution system that will ensure that every team, regardless of talent, effort or level of play will get an equal share of the total number of runs scored every season. This system will ensure that every team gets to the playoffs, as well as providing a somewhat extended post-season schedule.

Critics have complained that OBS efforts will result in chaos. But certain restrictions will apply. OBS partners in organized labor have vowed to keep the more important jobs in baseball, such as groundskeeping, maintenance, transportation and sanitation are available only to union members, and permanently closed to freelancers. This will serve to maintain the quality of play.

OBS spokespersons claim the organization is apolitical, but critics question this statement. Since President Obama has been invited to throw out the first ball at the season opener, Democrats have complained. They insist that the requirement to put one over the plate is unfair to a president who was brought up from the minors too fast, leads the league in errors, and is likely to be traded in 2012.

TAX THE POOR

2011-10-03T11:00:29Z

by Lance Thompson

President Obama has recently been imploring wealthy Americans to "pay their fair share of taxes." Wealthy Americans already pay 70, 80 or 90 percent of the total tax revenue (depending on how one defines "wealthy"), and the least wealthy half of the population pays no tax at all. Thus, the equitable solution is not to increase the already sizable burden on the wealthy, but rather to bring the poor onto the tax rolls.

We needn’t stigmatize those who currently pay taxes as "poor." Nor do we need to resurrect the "poor tax" which remains a feature on a "Chance" card in Monopoly. It is enough merely to identify the fifty percent of Americans who pay no taxes and assess them with a token minimum tax–say one or two hundred dollars annually. This minimum payment could have a graduated scale for non tax-payers who have greater income.

The immediate effect would be that everyone pays something. Wealthy taxpayers will still pay the vast majority of taxes, but no one gets a free ride. Everyone would have what Ross Perot used to call "skin in the game."

Those who currently don’t pay tax and also receive government entitlements of any kind would pay more than those who receive no assistance–let’s say a 50% surcharge added to the minimum tax. To facilitate timely collection, this amount could be amortized over the year, with 1/12 being withheld from monthly assistance. This would also obviate the need for complex tax calculations. The government would simply hold back some of the money it regularly sends out–a tax rebate in reverse.

The amount of revenue garnered from the minimum tax would be insignificant–merely a few billion against the vast vat of red ink we are currently drowning in. Still, every little billion helps.

The greater value would lie in the effect of ensuring that every American is a contributor to his or her government. We would no longer be divided between revenue providers and revenue consumers. Each of us would have a personal stake in the game of government finance. We would have proprietary interest in who our leaders are, what decisions they make, and how they spend our money.

We will never have responsible government until the people demand it. And they won’t demand it until everybody is paying his fair share.

Palin the Pushover?

2011-09-12T11:00:21Z

by Lance Thompson

Media commentator and best-selling author Laura Ingraham, whom I admire, respect and ordinarily agree with, spoke with a Sarah Palin supporter on her Thursday radio show. Ingraham cooled the caller's enthusiasm by making the point that a Palin candidacy is what the left hopes for above all else, since Palin would presumably alienate the independents who are abandoning Obama in droves. This reasoning is faulty and self-defeating.

First, no one knows who can or will win any election. Democrats won the presidency last time with the least qualified candidate to seek the office in a century. Judging from the policies and legislation passed under Obama, Democrats seem completely mystified by economics, foreign policy, American culture and character. So what evidence is there that they can predict the behavior of an electorate suffering from massive government debt, debilitating unemployment, and four years of buyer's remorse? Other than those votes conjured from thin air by ACORN, the Democrats have no particular insight into who the electorate will choose. It is impossible to predict the GOP nominee, and how formidable a candidate he or she will be. The only probability is that Barack Obama will spend most of 2013 wondering where he went wrong.

Second, if Palin is such a pushover that liberals everywhere are salivating at a chance to compete against her, why have they been so public about their hopes? Why have they spent years attacking her in the media? If she were actually the candidate they prefer to face, wouldn't they keep their preferences to themselves, and passively support her candidacy? If the Dems are really anxious to see Obama face Palin in presidential debates, on the campaign trail, in the media, why have they done so much to make her candidacy difficult to achieve? Obviously, they don't want to face Palin. They are terrified of her because they know she will expose Barack Obama for the empty vessel he has always been.

Third, whether the opposition fears or dismisses Palin, why would we ever let the enemy’s stated preferences determine our candidate? Even if the Dems do have a crystal ball, how would we know if their views are legitimate or assumed? Will we choose all GOP candidates based on how much they are reviled, feared, or savaged by our enemies? Isn’t the whole point to choose candidates based on their views, track records and experience?

Fourth, does the Democrat claim that they are anxious to run a brutal campaign against Palin guarantee that they will sling any less mud against any other candidate? No matter who the GOP nominates, that person will face a hostile media, unscrupulous tactics, and mendacious advertising. Does anyone believe that the Democrats will meet a non-Palin candidacy with reserve, integrity, and fair dealing?

I believe Sarah Palin would be a strong, inspirational and galvanizing candidate. There may be good reasons not to nominate her, but the professed eagerness of the Democrats to run against her is not one of them. If Republicans believe another candidate will do better, they will make that choice during the primaries. And if Sarah Palin runs, and the GOP nominates her next fall, then we’ll see how eager the Democrats really are for a fight.

Poles Apart

2011-08-01T15:54:34Z

by Lance Thompson

The debt ceiling tug of war is unlikely to be satisfactorily resolved. The reason is that Republicans and Democrats have divergent views of the private economy, and that difference will always prevent compromise.
Both parties understand that the private economy is the source of all wealth. Republicans take this position openly; Democrats will never admit it in public. Democrats justify massive government spending by calling it "stimulus," "job creation," or "investment," but they know that all the money government spends comes from the private sector. The government does not create wealth–it can only consume it.

The chief difference between the two parties is in their views of the private sector. Republicans understand that while the private sector is a powerful engine for creating wealth, providing jobs, and encouraging investment, it is paradoxically quite fragile. Like the towering redwood trees with their shallow root system, the private sector is vulnerable to seemingly minor trauma. Excessive regulation, oppressive taxation, selective bureaucratic penalties and restrictions all have deleterious effects on the private sector. Republicans understand that the responsibility of the government in this country is to enable the private sector to operate efficiently. The more the government interferes in the free market, the less free it becomes, and the less likely it is to create the wealth that government feeds upon.

Democrats take the private sector for granted. They believe that if more revenue is needed, it can be highly taxed. If social engineering is required, it can be strictly regulated. If products or services conflict with official policy, it can be sanctioned, targeted, or even nationalized. Democrats believe that no matter how much they punish the private sector, it will remain robust, continue to grow and create wealth.

The two and a half years of the Obama administration has clearly shown that the Democrat view is wrong. Profligate government spending has produced rising unemployment, plummeting home values, shrinking or fleeing industry, a devalued currency and record public debt and deficits. Further, the taxation and regulation policies cripple our industries. Domestic energy production, manufacturing in all sectors, overall job creation and industrial investment have all suffered substantially from the adversarial relationship this regime has with the private sector.

This divergence of views did not begin with Obama, but it has reached its most severe manifestation under this president. This administration has spent irresponsibly; taken over banks, automobile companies, and the entire health care system; monetized our towering debt; and crippled our economy. Now, the only route back to fiscal solvency requires a reversal of all these policies. The trouble is, Democrats don’t believe they’re doing any harm.

The party that fervently believes that every exhalation from any animal on earth is a contribution to global climate change refuses to believe that government policy has any effect on private industry. The president who believes he can turn back the rising oceans and purify the air with a few well-chosen mandates will not admit that taxes, regulations, and government interference has any effect on economic output. Supporters of Obama who believed he could unite the nations of the world and usher in global peace shut their eyes to the real and permanent damage he has done to American companies large and small.

Whatever response to the debt crisis is eventually devised, it will not be effective as long as it tries to please both sides in this argument. Any policy that tries to straddle the wide chasm between Republican and Democrat economic doctrine is bound to collapse into the abyss.

Crisis Management

2011-07-25T11:00:23Z

by Lance Thompson

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," is the philosophy of ex-Obama chief of staff and White House arm twister Rahm Emanuel. During the reign of Obama, this tactic has been used repeatedly to justify government overspending, overreaching, and overtaxing.

Liberals are masters of applying this approach. They create a crisis, postpone any attempt to address it until the last minute, and then introduce emergency legislation contrived in secret and passed in haste. This has enabled serial transgressions such as stimulus spending, debt monetization, Obamacare, government takeover of lending institutions and auto companies, and countless smaller outrages. It’s time conservatives followed Emanuel’s example.

The current debt ceiling crisis was created by two and a half years of Democrat overspending, and is now being used as an excuse to spend even more. But as often as Democrats use a crisis to justify irresponsible behavior, conservatives have seldom used one to support responsible leadership.

If this crisis is as severe as Democrats say, then why not insist upon a long-term, permanent solution that will prevent it from recurring? The Cut, Cap and Balance plan offers such a solution, yet Republicans in Congress have been talking about compromises and half measures that promise only to postpone the hard decisions that will grow more difficult and costly in the future.

In the past, crises have led to liberal expansion, but they can be equally persuasive of conservative solutions. The response to soaring debt can be the liberal one of increasing the debt ceiling, or the conservative one of reducing spending. The response to downgrading America’s credit rating could be the liberal approach of borrowing more or the conservative choice to pass a balanced budget amendment. The response to approaching exhaustion of programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment compensation could be the empty liberal promise of extending benefits or the conservative solution of reducing benefits and adjusting eligibility.

A recent CNN poll (18-20 July 2011 by ORC International) indicates that two thirds of Americans, including Republicans, Democrats and independents, support the Cut, Cap and Balance plan as a solution to the debt crisis. Americans understand that this crisis is a threat to our economy, our way of life, and our position in the world. We understand that drastic action is necessary, and two thirds of us are at least receptive to a responsible solution.

It’s up to conservatives to make the argument for a responsible, long-term solution to our debt crisis, and then to pass legislation that will make that solution possible. Who knows–if we prove as adept as using crises as the other side, maybe crisis management can be permanently retired along with the debt.