Last week America’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that “tax cuts for the most fortunate 2% - 3% of Americans should be allowed to expire”.  On Sunday the Secretary went on to say something that virtually no economist would agree with…..that “raising taxes on the nation’s highest income earners would NOT have a negative effect on growth”.  Who is he trying to kid?

First off let me offer a couple of facts.  Consumer spending is estimated to account for 65% -70% of GDP. Of that consumer spending, over 30% of it comes from the top 5% of income earners.   The reason so few (if any) economists would agree  that raising rates for the top tax bracket doesn’t have a negative effect on growth is because it is totally illogical to believe that reducing the discretionary income of those that spend the most wouldn’t reduce overall spending…and thus economic growth.

Secondly and more importantly, what about jobs?  Let’s examine Geithner’s quote regarding allowing tax cuts to expire for the most fortunate.  (And let’s be clear, allowing tax cuts to expire is the same thing as raising taxes) 

What would you think if the term “most fortunate” was replaced by “most productive”?  How about replacing the term “most fortunate” with “those that create the most new jobs”?

Many of those “fortunate” people in higher income brackets are the small business owners that everyone agrees create most of the new jobs in this country. How much traction would the federal government get using alternative terminology to discuss the “most fortunate” whilst we are in the middle of a jobs crisis? 

For example, what would you think if you heard “We believe tax cuts for the most productive Americans should be allowed to expire”.

Or

“We believe taxes for those Americans that create the most jobs should be raised”.

Does anyone really believe that folks that make it to the top in terms of virtually anything, including income, are in the position they are because they are “fortunate” as opposed to highly skillful, hard working, and risk taking?

America is desperate to restart the engine of job growth. While international Fortune 500 companies are earning huge amounts of money, it is job creating small business owners who are struggling to just to maintain themselves.

Who amongst us really believes that many jobs will be created by people earning $50,000 a year as opposed to those earning over $200,000 a year?  Yet Secretary Geithner and the Obama administration want taxes on those individuals earning over $200,000 to soar beginning January 2011. 

Don’t you think that removing incentives from the risk takers in our society and penalizing them with higher taxes for their success is going to dampen their “animal spirits” in regard to hiring, expanding, investing, and growing their businesses?

I have preached on this blog that running huge deficits is a pox.  While it is understandable during a time of economic contraction/uncertainty for the government to deficit spend…..over the long term overspending it is a recipe for disaster.  However, the government’s current plan of borrowing and spending massive amounts of money that mostly flows to public sector government employees…and then raising taxes on the most productive private sector entrepreneurs….makes little sense to me.

Timothy Geithner

I think that if we are to run deficits we should do so in a manner that puts more money into the private sector by way of low taxes.  Increasing incentives for those who create jobs….so they can do what they do best…. rather than taking money via taxes from the creative and giving it to the government to redistribute…..simply holds the economic pie stable at best….and shrinks the economic pie at worst.

When my son played soccer the league eliminated the all-star game so as not to hurt the feelings of those who didn’t make the team.  It was stupid and fooled nobody.  All the kids know who the best players are.  And adults know who creates the jobs.  It’s not the guys and gals in the middle of the income bracket, it is those at the top.  Pretending it otherwise for reasons of politics, or to be politically correct, is foolishness.    

At a time when so many in the middle are looking to make an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work, raising taxes on their entrepreneurial employers simply reduces the overall incentives to hire.

Who are we trying to kid?

When is a tax increase not a tax increase..until it is a tax increase?  The answer: The healthcare legislation commonly known as Obamacare.

The video below is an exchange between former Clinton senior political advisor George Stephanopoulos and President Obama.  The interview took place September 2009 on the ABC show This Week. 

Throughout the exchange, particularly the last half of the video, President Obama repeatedly takes Stephanopoulos to task for asking why Obamacare’s  forcing Americans to purchase healthcare insurance (or pay a penalty) is not a tax. The President declares “for us to say that you’ve got to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase”.

As you can plainly see in the video, Mr. Obama is quite forceful in stating that dictionary definitions are beside the point, and that it is his critics who wrongly are claiming he is creating a new tax on citizens.  One reason the President was so forceful in his assertions regarding new healthcare taxes is because of his often spoken pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year.

In the wake of Obamcare passage in March 2010, officials from 14 states went to court trying to block the President’s healthcare legislation. They argue that requiring individuals to purchase healthcare insurance violates the Constitution.

However, this week the Obama Justice Department went to court and responded to state officials by saying that requiring people to carry insurance or pay a penalty is a “valid exercise of Congresses power to impose taxes”. The Justice Department said “Congress can use its taxing power even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions of the Constitution because the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce”.

Congress wrote the healthcare legislation describing the levy on the uninsured as a penalty and not a tax.  However the Obama Justice Department cast that logic aside in court by saying “the statutory label does not matter.  The constitutionality of a tax law depends upon its practical operation, not the precise form of words used to describe it”.

So, when is a tax increase on the middle class not a tax increase?  Hmm, you tell me because I’m confused.  It reminds me of the old Groucho Marx quip “Are you going to believe me or what you see with your own eyes?”

Well Mr. Crisp, an amateur treasure hunter, was at his “craft” as he strolled through Frome (Southwestern England) when the beeper on his listening device indicated he had come in contact with metal.  After a bit of digging knew he had found something that exceeded his wildest imagination. 

Archaeologists would be needed to help with the dig.

What Mr. Crisp discovered was a huge pot filled with thousands of Roman coins.  Fifty two thousand coins weighing 350 pounds to be exact.  Hundreds of the coin bore the likeness of Marcus Aurelius who many know from having watched the movie “Gladiator”.

Under the Treasure Act of 1996 the coins are to become the property of the British Crown and will ultimately be displayed in a museum for all to see.  As for compensation, many say the coins are worth in the neighborhood of 3.3 million pounds, which is the equivalent of over $5,000,000 US dollars.  Mr. Crisp and the landowner will split the rich bounty.

Hail Caesar!

Caesars Palace Las Vegas

EASY GO: Terrence Watanbe likes to gamble.  In fact, he liked it so much that he spent almost an entire year gambling…and gambling…and gambling at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.

Unfortunately for Mr. Watanbe, he is not the luckiest person in the world.  Mr. Watanbe, a Nebraska businessman, may not be lucky but he is the owner of a new world record.  Over the course of about a year he managed to lose $127,000,000 on the casino floor, mostly playing roulette but trying his hand at blackjack and other games of chance.

Caesars offered Watanbe special deals for choosing to gamble at their establishment.  These included free concert tickets, a three bedroom suite, up to 60 days to pay his debts and 15% back on all monthly gambling losses that exceeded $500,000.

Mr. Watanbe, who inherited a business from his father, paid Harrahs (owner of Caesars Palace and the Rio) about $112 million.  However, there was a little matter of the remaining $14.7 that was owed.

Charges for writing bad checks were drawn up against Watanbe.  A counter civil suit by Watanbe stated that the casino plied him with drinks and allowed him to gamble while clearly intoxicated.

Ultimately an agreement was reached whereby both sides agreed to put their competing claims on hold pending binding arbitration. 

Well, as I said, easy come, easy go.

Hail Caesar!

Homo sapiens are a most amazing creature.   We have built technologically sophisticated ships to transport ourselves to the moon.  We’ve developed mobile communication systems and the internet. We’ve even figured out how to map the genome and create “artificial” life.

However, we can’t do everything.  Three months into the worst man made ecological disaster in American history we haven’t yet capped a blown up oil rig which is pouring untold barrels of black sludge into the ocean.  BP is pursuing a “relief well”, which basically means drilling a new well at an angle so that it captures the oil currently spilling out before it reaches the existing well’s broken opening…..or putting yet another type of cap on the well.   The next best option after that seems to be using a nuclear device.  Yikes!

Yet in the face of the realization that mankind isn’t omnipotent, some humans are telling us they can predict what the weather will be in a hundred years…..and that they have the solution for changing it.

Ah, not so fast.    

We don’t know what the weather will be like tomorrow. (Best guess is that it will be similar to what it was today) 

We can’t figure out why traffic on a freeway gets jammed even though there’s apparently no cause….let alone an accident many miles ahead.

We can only guess whether the stock market is going to rise or fall, either today, in a month, or next year.

We haven’t the slightest idea who will become President of the United States in 2024.

Supercomputers

However, computer models….similar to the ones that stress tested the capital markets and assured all that there was virtually no possibility of a financial meltdown….might be telling us that in a hundred years the weather could be hotter. (However computer outcomes are subject to computer inflows…ie the old saw about garbage in, garbage out)

Human beings are indeed a most amazing creature. 

We buy lottery tickets knowing that the odds of winning are so poor that it isn’t really worth looking and seeing what the winning number actually is.  

Many of us pray to a god we can’t see, touch, or hear……knowingly satisfied with the proposition that it is an act of unadulterated faith as opposed to reason.

Yet, mankind tinkers with the idea of greatly imposing huge costs on society…and by extension throwing untold millions into poverty…on the concept that we can change what the global mean temperature will be at the end of the century.

Hubris is defined by Wikipedia as “extreme haughtiness or arrogance. Hubris often indicates being out of touch with reality and overestimating one’s own competence or capability”.

You decide.  Is trying to change the planet’s future weather in the face of the BP oil spill an act of humbris…or simply humans using their abilities to try and create a better world?

For decades American presidents have been saying that the United States needs to become more energy independent.  Whether it was Jimmy Carter speaking while gas prices soared as Middle Eastern nations formed an oil cartel to increase prices, George Bush’s rhetoric in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, or Barack Obama saying green thinking was the pathway to new jobs and a better world.

Yet it seems as though there has been but modest alterations with regard to how the overwhelming majority of people heat their homes, transport themselves, or get their electricity for turning on a light switch.

The question is: If there is so much talk of changing our energy habits, why has there been so little actual change?

I’ll use California and its commercial solar industry as an example.  California of course has a ton of sun and is the natural place where residential and commercial solar electricity should be generated. Yet the solar proposition has only generated an extremely modest amount of electricity and new employment.

As of now the federal government pays 30% of the cost of a commercial solar project via a CASH tax grant.  The utility company pays anywhere from 10%-25% of the cost of a commercial solar energy system conditioned upon the utility and the specifics of the deal.  (Either in cash today or cash over five years, depending upon the utility and size of the project)  Add in accelerated depreciation for commercial deals and you’d think we were just starting to get going and things should snowball from here.

Sadly, the opposite is poised to happen.

One reason the opposite is poised to happen is because the cash federal tax grant goes away 12/31/10 and is replaced by a tax credit.  This means a purchaser must have a tax appetite or else the “credit” does him/her no good….and the buyer must now wait up to 16 months to be able to use the federal tax credit via a filing of federal corporate income taxes.

A second reason has to do with the sharp decrease in the level of utility rebate funds.  In the example of Southern California Edison, the rebate has dropped from $1.90 in October 2009 to $1.55 per watt, and then to $1.10 per watt, to its new level of 65 cents per watt, and is soon to drop again to 35 cents per watt.

You might ask: Why has the Southern California Edison commercial solar rebate dropped so steeply? The answer is the way the California Solar Initiative rebate was structured.  Like a pyramid the rebate was structured to pay a few people at the top a large rebate…..and as those rebates were “reserved” the next….and larger…..group of people received lower rebates.   And so on and so on.  The rebates keep dropping as more businesses go “ongird”.  Thus very few rebates are paid at the higher levels. (The higher the rebate, the more attractive a solar investment becomes)

In fact, the few first commercial deals were done with a huge $2.50 Southern Cal Edison rebate.  Some big companies took advantage of these large rebates.  In Northern California for example, you saw companies like Cypress Semiconductor get in “on the ground floor” of utility rebates and gobble up the high rebates, leaving scraps for smaller companies that today might want to invest in solar but need a large rebate to make the concept economically attractive.

"Not in my backyard"

The sad but true fact is that in most cases solar energy is too expensive without massive subsidies.  As we all know, the government doesn’t have the resources to significantly change the energy business by offering huge incentives such as cash rebates.

There is a reason petroleum/gas products continue to power America’s energy needs.  The reason is…..petroleum is cheap and out of sight (Massive oil spills notwithstanding)…..and solar, wind and biofuels are very expensive and somewhat intrusive looking. 

Because the government doesn’t have gigantic amounts of money to subsidize alternative energy, I believe little will change in the near term regarding America’s energy consumption. That means solar, wind and the other alternative energy sources are going to continue to be spoken about by politicians as offering a utopian solution to the world’s energy demands.  Unfortunately, most of that talk is a bunch of hot air.

The World Cup is the most watched sporting event on the planet. Every four years gallons of ink are used printing newspapers that report on all aspects of play.  Entire nations come to a complete stop when their team is playing. Some players have even been known to have been murdered because of their poor play during the tournament.

The question is: Why is the officiating so bad…and why is instant replay on the most important calls not used?

The video below shows a goal scored by England in their match with Germany that wasn’t ruled as a goal.  It is shocking because the ball bounces inside the net by at least two feet.  How is it possible that in a match that is watched by hundreds of millions of people, and had been anticipated for years, could be “ruined” by a referee’s terrible non-call? (Though Germany went on to win the game 4-1 and was clearly the superior team, the game would have been tied at 2-2 and then who knows how play/strategy/tactics would have been altered?)

As bad as the England-Germany ruling was….the “quiet” ruling in the United States vs Slovenia game was in many ways worse.  The reason it was worse is because not only was an American goal disallowed……but the referee refused to say what the “foul” was or who it was on.

Okay, so FIFA (Federation International Football Association) prevented that referee from officiating any more games…but….allowing that to stand is madness!  (The “rules” say a referee doesn’t have to explain anything about a call either during the game or afterwards)

The Youtube video clearly shows no foul on the part of the American team.  In fact, a close review of the play shows many of the Slovenian players illegally holding the Yanks.

I’ve given just two of many examples of poor officiating totally distorting the outcome of 2010 World Cup games.  I live in Los Angeles, which of course has a heavy Mexican presence.  Another good example is the outrage felt in Mexico that a terrible call cost their national team a goal in their game versus Argentina.

I know Soccer (BTW: It’s called football everywhere in the world except in the United States) has its heritage, and things are done the way they’ve always been done.   But for the American baseball World Series extra umpires are put on the field.  NBA Basketball now enjoys instant replay for certain situations.  Tennis has a replay computer which allows players to challenge a line call.  American professional football lets coaches contest a call via instant replay at the penalty of losing a time-out if they are wrong.

Unlike many Americans, I very much enjoy watching soccer/football.  My biggest “problem” with the game is that since it is generally such a low scoring sport, that a single penalty often has a giant impact on a game’s result.  Allowing penalty kicks from 12 yards away from the net with just a goalie defending is in my opinion far too draconian a punishment.  It is somewhat equivalent to allowing ten free throws for a basketball foul, or letting one of your own players pitch slow underhand to you in baseball if there is a problem. 

In a low scoring sport like soccer, getting the calls right on goals and important penalties is vitial.

Isn’t it time for Soccer to join the 21^st century and allow for some sort instant replay review of obvious incorrect calls by the referees”?  I say it is.  My guess is there are about a billion people watching the sport that agree with me.  

I believe that the single most destructive word is “should”.  Sadly, the word “should” prevents far too many of us from enjoying life the way it is….as opposed to the way it “should” be.

Who amongst us hasn’t had any of these thoughts?

I should have more money by now.

I should already have _________.

Why should I have to do _________ when suchabody doesn’t?

It’s not fair. It should be fair.

Try to test yourself.  Listen to when you use the word “should”.  Try to use it less.  It is a very interesting exercise.  I bet you’ll be surprised by what you catch yourself saying and thinking in connection with the word “should”.

Between you and me…..the joke is..…..”should” is most often either stupid or immature.

Things in life are not as they “should” be, so thinking about it mostly gives you negative feelings.  On those instances when there is action on your part that will bring about a more idealized life (in your opinion at least), then please, raise yourself to the challenge.   Thus I agree with UCLA basketball coach extraordinaire John Wooden’s quote “don’t measure yourself by what you have accomplished, but by what you “should” have accomplished with your ability.”  The trick is knowing when there is action within yourself you can and want to take…and when there is little you can do to alter life as it is. (Especially when the cost exceeds the benefit)

That said, thinking, worrying, complaining about how things “should” be serves to lessen your happiness.  You end up putting far too high a value on things that in reflection…..don’t really matter much.  I say work confidently.  Root strongly for your sports teams. (Go LAKERS!)  Eat well. Enjoy people.

My new year’s resolution was to “try to slow down time”.  That mantra, when combined with the lessons I’ve recently learned, has helped me appreciate my family, my time, my friends, and my life so much more.

Here is another little test.  This one sounds easy but in actuality is very hard to do. (At least for a type “A” personality such as mine)  At a point during the day when you are scurrying around doing whatever it is you do……stop.  Just stand there for 60 seconds and stop.  Listen to the sounds.  Feel the sun or the wind.  Look at the landscape of where you’re at, whether it is the trees, the people or the buildings.  Just move yourself outside of the moment you thought you were in and enjoy.  It sounds easy.  I dare you to try it three days in a row.

You ask me why take a single minute out of your day to move back and absorb…and enjoy the now pleasure of the moment.  Well….er….I just think you “should”.

President Barrack Obama is going before the nation tonight on national TV to speak about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  He is going to try and gain momentum for a fix to the leakage and its cleanup….discuss monetary compensation for those economically injured…..contemplate the massive environmental damage….and seek to stop the political bleeding that has captured his administration. He might even use the crisis to trumpet an energy policy that may or may not have much merit. (More on that in another post)

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, a person can only make an initial impression once.  Likewise, a President only has one shot at his initial response to a crisis.  The judgement is in….and the American people are not pleased with the way the government has thus far handled the crisis. (And make no mistake. This is a crisis of huge proportions) 

While it is certainly possible that the next phase of this crisis, and the one after that, is handled much more adroitly than has thus far been the case…the initial Obama response to the Gulf Oil Spill has been rated UNSATISFACTORY by the American people.  

Of course it is true that the President cannot “suck up the oil with a straw” as he recently told people. And there may not be a good solution to the technological problem that BP….and America faces.

However, from a political and a management perspective, for far too long the President failed to realize the significance and magnitude of the situation.

In retrospect I’m sure Mr. Obama would have spoken to the CEO of BP right off the bat…rather than wait over 7 weeks to do so.  President Obama would have called out the army, navy and corp of engineers to lend their thoughts and muscle.  He would have convened an early meeting with BP and our top scientists so that a step by step plan of action could be drawn up.  He would have gone much sooner and visited those folks whose livelihoods were affected.  He would have gone before the American people, or perhaps put his arm around a fisherman…bullhorn in hand…..right from the beginning.

There is much to be said about an oil rig spilling huge amounts of black sludge into the environment.  Failures abound at every level.  From the regulators who did a terrible job to the oil company that didn’t have a solution when an accident happened.  (And accidents always happen) 

I’m not going to talk about whether or not there should…or should not be offshore drilling.  Talking about energy policies and oil policies are best left for another day.  I did want to talk about the politics of the oil spill and how that effects President Obama.

The American people, including many people who didn’t vote for Obama, were inspired and proud that our country’s original sin of slavery was somehow addressed with Obama’s election.  The overwhelming majority of Americans sincerely wanted Obama to “succeed”. (If success is measured by economic vitality and national safety)

However the $787 billion stimulus bill, which was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% is now seen as little more than maintaining state spending for public sector union jobs and totally disconnected from private sector job growth. The Healthcare bill feels like it was rammed down the throats of citizens even though the Senatorial election in Massachusetts reiterated a clear message that the majority of Americans didn’t want the bill passed.  The President’s inherited war in Afghanistan is not proceeding swimmingly, and Obama’s policy of a surge and then quick withdrawl has made both “left” and “right” displeased…and more importantly, is questionable if it has improved our national safety.

Thus on issues of the economy, war, and restructuring large segments of American society there is much hand wringing and discomfort. Politically, in the wake of the oil spill crisis, I now believe the President has used up all of his “benefit of the doubts”. 

I know I sorrowfully approved Obama’s meek approach to Iran when the people of that country cried out for a strong immediate moral voice from the United States.  I was trying desperately to give Obama the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of his presidency. 

Now, I think I’m not alone in saying that results…..and not words….are what I’m going to look at….and expect from here in. 

If the past is any indicator of the future, my expectations moving forward for this president are very low.  Sadly I don’t even think those low expectations will be met.

To watch Al Jazeera TV is to learn that on May 31^st, in the middle of the night, Israeli commandos stormed a humanitarian flotillia that was trying to bring aid to the people of Gaza.  Unprovoked, nine peace loving people were killed by the murderous Israelis.  Immediately Turkey, France, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Secretary General and many others all express deep outrage.  Why would Israel, a democracy, engage in such an outrageous unlawful act of hateful brutality?

To understand the question is to know the answer.  And to know the answer  is to know some truths. 

The first truth is that from a public relations standpoint, Israel fell into the nightmare trap those hoping for its destruction had set.  That is folly on the behalf of the Israelis.  The second truth is that almost none of the statements mentioned at the top of this blog post have any relationship with reality.

TRUTHS:

Many “peace activist” aboard the one ship that saw the violence had knives and lead pipes which were used on Israeli commandos.  By definition you can’t be a “peace activist” and carry weapons and engage in violence. (see Youtube)

The six ships in the flotilla were requested to go to an Israeli port so the ship’s cargo could be inspected for weapons.  Five ships complied. One ship refused. 

The reason there is a blockade is because Israel is trying to prevent the importation of weapons to Gaza.  It was not trying to prevent wheelchairs and paper from reaching Gaza as per the Tehran Times headline.  Remember, the government of Gaza, the terrorist designated organization Hamas, is publically dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel. Over 4,000 rockets were fired at Israeli from its territory over the past three years.

The Israeli commandos carried paint ball guns in their hands.  Only after an Israeli commando was thrown overboard and violence erupted did the commandos radio for authority to use their side arms—-which carried live ammunition.

The amount of humanitarian aid onboard the ships equaled less than the average 24 hours worth of goods brought into Gaza daily from Israel.

Egypt is also blocking Gaza from receiving goods from sources that don’t pass prior inspection.

Insani Yardim Vakfi sponsored the ship where the violence occurred.  IHH has documented links to terrorist organizations.  Youtube videos show passengers chanting about Khaybar, the 7^th century city where Mohammed led an army that slaughtered Jews.

There is total legal justification for Israel’s blockade.  The boarding of a ship destined to a power that is de facto at war is well within the bounds of international law. Those who interfered with a legal boarding of a ship by the representatives of a nation’s navy were not acting in accordance with international law.

The Los Angeles Times ran a small article three days prior to the flotilla incident and quoted an Israeli government official that regardless the outcome, there was a disaster about to occur.

What would the United States do if 4,000 rockets had been fired at Escondido or San Diego with Mexican consent?  What would America do if thousand of rockets were fired at Everett Washington from Canadian territory—resulting in death and mayhem?     

Cultural norms change.  In 1993, when Democratic President Bill Clinton initiated the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule regarding homosexuals serving in the military, it was approved by the majority of the American people who thought it “fair”, though disapproved by the majority of those serving in the armed forces. (who thought it tampering with their institution) It was seen as a sort of compromise.  An attempt by the chief executive to not get too far ahead of society’s cultural norms, while recognizing that homosexuals had a “place” in the nation’s military.

When President Harry Truman signed executive order 9981 which integrated the military, you could say that he moved ahead of the nation in terms of what most Americans thought was appropriate. President Abraham Lincoln used black troops during the Civil War so as to strengthen his forces and for various political reasons.

Some argue that the military is not a place for ”social experimentation”.  On the surface that argument has some merit and is used by those opposed to repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell”.  However, I believe Congress, particularly Congressional Democrats, acted correctly to initiate the process by which people will be legally assured they can serve their country regardless of their sexual orientation.

Seventeen years, a generation, has passed since “don’t ask, don’t tell” became official policy.  Back in 1993 I was somewhat sympathetic to the argument that the military was unique because of the consequences of the job and the special unit cohesion necessary for success.  The “risk” that fighting effectiveness would be lowered due to truthful sexual representation had more weight with me then than now.  Times have changed. Institutions change.  Cultures change.

Not only do polls show most Americans would get rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, but so would the majority of military personnel.  Most Americans now feel that sexual orientation should not be a factor when considering a person’s ability to be in the military.

BTW: A majority of conservatives and a majority of Republicans think it’s alright for openly gay people to serve. The strongest group that disagree are Congressional Republicans.  They make up most of the 186 congresspeople that voted against the drive to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell. (The vote was 229-186 in favor of the motion)

Let’s face it, most of the people who serve in the military are young.  The majority are 18-25 years old.  To this generation of soldier…..being gay is like having red hair.  You probably don’t have it, but if you did…whatever, that’s the way God made you, and you’re happy with who you are, life is good.

The fact is that in the past 17 years the United States military has kicked out over 13,000 people due to their sexual orientation.  That doesn’t make the country safer, that doesn’t make the nation more equitable, that doesn’t make sense, and the policy needs to be overturned. Don’t ask, don’t tell” might have once seemed logical and a fair compromise. That is no longer the case.