Friday Fun Film: "The Powers of Congress"(1947)

Seems like a good time to show this old Coronet film:



They thought this was surrealistic back in the day.

I sorta think Congress is surrealistic today.

The Fall of Vietnam - 40 years Ago and Lessons Learned

I keep getting reminded that I am not as young as I feel. The latest blow was a spate of headlines (e.g. here and an PBS show ("Last Days in Vietnam") commemorating the fall of the Republic of South Vietnam - 40 years ago:

In April of 1975, the North Vietnamese Army was closing in on Saigon as South Vietnamese resistance was crumbling. Approximately 5,000 Americans remained with roughly 24 hours to get out. Their South Vietnamese allies, co-workers, and friends faced certain imprisonment and possible death if they remained behind, yet there was no official evacuation plan in place. Still, over the last days in Vietnam, with the clock ticking and the city under fire, 135,000 South Vietnamese managed to escape with help from a number of heroic Americans who took matters into their own hands, engaging in unsanctioned and often makeshift operations in a desperate effort to save as many people as possible.

At the time of the fall of Vietnam, I was a LTJG and on shore duty. I had submitted my letter of resignation and was plotting my next move. As was common in those days, I had been assigned to one ship for a little over 3 years and I had been deployed about 1/2 of that time, not counting out of home port training.

In late March, 1972 we were off Vietnam headed for liberty in Thailand when we got turned around and sent back north. The North Vietnamese were rolling tanks into the south. U.S. destroyers, cruisers and carriers were in place to try to help stop the advance of the "Easter Offensive." There was a huge expenditure of ordnance. Ammo stocks fell so low so fast that eventually replacement stuff was being flown into to Subic Bay by air for loading onto the replenishment ships that sortied from the Naval Magazine to the "gun line." USS Pyro (AE-24) set a Navy record for ammunition transferred by an ammunition ship. From April to July the South Vietnamese forces held against and ultimately defeated the North Vietnamese forces at the Battle of An Loc. From June to mid -September, the South Vietnamese again defeated the North Vietnamese Army in the Second Battle of Quang Tri. In May, the U.S. Navy and Air Force mined North Vietnamese harbors, including the main harbor at Haiphong. These mining operations continued in bits and pieces for 8 months. In any event, the stiffened South Vietnamese response and the new attacks on North Vietnam both in conventional bombing and with the closure of its ports, drove the North Vietnamese to the peace table. Eventually, it looked like there would be a two state solution. See here.

However, starting in 1974, Congress began cutting funding to South Vietnam:

Congress places a $1 billion ceiling on military aid to South Vietnam for fiscal year 1974. This figure was trimmed further to $700 million by August 11. Military aid to South Vietnam in fiscal year 1973 was $2.8 billion; in 1975 it would be cut to $300 million. Once aid was cut, it took the North Vietnamese only 55 days to defeat the South Vietnamese forces when they launched their final offensive in 1975.

and this:

During his confirmation hearings in June 1973, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger was sharply criticized by some senators after he stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against South Vietnam. However, Nixon was driven from office due to the Watergate scandal in 1974 and when the North Vietnamese began their final offensive early in 1975, the United States Congress refused to appropriate the funds needed by the South Vietnamese to protect Saigon, citing strong opposition to American involvement in the war by Americans and the loss of American equipment to the North by retreating Southern forces. Thieu subsequently resigned, accusing the U.S. of betrayal in a TV and radio address:

At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men.

The North Vietnamese entered Saigon on April 30 1975. Schlesinger had announced early in the morning of 29 April the evacuation from Saigon by helicopter of the last U.S. diplomatic, military, and civilian personnel.

Anyone who watched the debacle of the "evacuation" - or who had any conscience about abandoning our allies on the field of battle or who had had classmates and friends die in the war - was sickened. As noted here:

The immigration of thousands of people from Southeast Asia in the 1970s and 1980s impacted American-Vietnamese relations and gave rise to new communities of Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, and Hmong Americans in the United States. Known as boat people for escaping Southeast Asia by sea, the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Southeast Asians (predominantly Vietnamese) generated a political and humanitarian firestorm for the international community, the United States, and Vietnam.

The first wave in 1975 included 140,000 South Vietnamese, mostly political leaders, army officers, and skilled professionals escaping the communist takeover. Fewer than a thousand Vietnamese successfully fled the nation. Those who managed to escape pirates, typhoons, and starvation sought safety and a new life in refugee camps in Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Hong Kong. For many, these countries became permanent homes, while for others they were only waystations to acquiring political asylum in other nations, including the United States.

During the administration of President James Earl Carter, Vietnamese immigration to the United States became a prominent political issue. The number of refugees fleeing Vietnam by sea increased to nearly six thousand in 1976 and twenty thousand the following year. Officials estimated that nearly one-third of this total perished at sea from starvation, drowning, and pirates, problems that increased when some Asian countries began turning away boat people.

The waves of desperate refugees continued for years.

Somewhere in all this, driven by news reports of the plight of the refugees, I withdrew my resignation and remained on active duty for another couple of years, making another deployment to the Western Pacific - albeit too late to assist those in need.

Years later, we began to see that we were not the only ones who learned lessons from the U.S. abandonment of its ally. In nearly every conflict we've been involved in since, including the long war with al Qaeda and its ilk, the theory of our enemies has been that if they can hang on through the initial overwhelming force delivered by the Americans, they will outlast the American "will to fight."

Our enemies know our Congress too well.

So, 40 years later, I am still mad as hell at the Congress that buckled when a spine was needed to see Vietnam was not abandoned to its fate.

In that cratering I see too many links to the messes we find ourselves in now.

Osama bin Laden said:

Bin Laden's hatred and disdain for the U.S. were also manifested while he lived in Sudan. There he told Al-Qaeda fighters-in-training:[23]
“ America appeared so mighty ... but it was actually weak and cowardly. Look at Vietnam, look at Lebanon. Whenever soldiers start coming home in body bags, Americans panic and retreat. Such a country needs only to be confronted with two or three sharp blows, then it will flee in panic, as it always has. ... It cannot stand against warriors of faith who do not fear death.

I would suggest he was not referring to our troops, but to the weak-kneed folks who refer to our young American warriors as "kids" as if they need coddling. These people seem to believe that by withdrawing from war we are safer.  That is clearly not a lesson that history would support.

No wonder 40 years seems like yesterday to me.

History, if not repeating, certainly seems to be rhyming.

Help Your Congressperson to Lower Your Gasoline Prices -Tell Them to Repeal "Renewable Fuel Standard" Mandates

From the Oil and Gas Journall, a little truth in why adding more ethanol to gasoline is a bad idea on a number of fronts:

. . . Congress set mandates for fuel ethanol far in excess of what the market safely and economically can use.

It did so under political pressure from agricultural interests. The ethanol mandate has been great for growers and distillers of corn.

For anyone else who buys fuel or food, it costs too much. And it will get worse.

The statutory requirement for ethanol from grain soon will exceed the gasoline market's capacity to use it at normal blending levels. Refiners and other blenders must buy credits to make up the difference. Prices of the credits are rising.

Meanwhile, a requirement for ethanol from cellulose is phasing in, although that material remains scarce. Blenders unable to meet sales mandates must pay fines.

Producers of gasoline thus face rapidly rising costs and have a growing incentive to export product rather than sell it domestically. Rising costs and diminished supply promise increasing prices at the pump.
...
The program is a disaster—and not because ethanol is bad stuff. It's a disaster because Congress, in order to make those grain growers and distillers happy —meaning rich— tried to outwit the market.

This never works. And it's inevitably corrupt.

A bipartisan bill to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard, as this fiasco is known, was introduced in the House in April. Now a group of Democrats and Republicans has introduced similar legislation in the Senate.

With consumers in jeopardy, the end of the RFS can't happen soon enough.

It won't remove ethanol from gasoline. It will, however, bring the amount of food burned in US vehicle engines back to rational and affordable proportions.

We have lots of natural gas, which burns cleaner than gasoline and doesn't "burn food." Perhaps this idiotic "Renewable Fuel Standards" effort is a backhanded way to encourage the market to expand NG availability for cars and truck and to help vehicle owners make the switch. Probably not,though, considering the source of the legislation.

According to an Exxon report, vehicles powered by natural gas have a 25% higher initial cost and is less "energy dense" so it may require more frequent fill-ups and other issues. However, these seem to be technological issues and I suspect that higher levels of production of NG vehicles would drive the price down and the availability of refill stations to expand. In addition, NG carries a lower price than gasoline so it is possible to recover the extra costs in a lifetime (unlike,say, with a hybrid car) . . . see here:

With so much supply that energy companies are pulling rigs out of the ground to cut back on production, natural gas is starting to look more appealing as a cheaper and cleaner alternative to gasoline and diesel.

As much as I hate to agree with Boone Pickens NG may be the way to go. And it may help remove one more seed of corruption in Washington.

Defense Spending Questions

Aviation Week notes a lot of hype about defense cuts, asks most of the right questions in its editorial on Defense Spending Debate Misses The Point , but here's the rub in its conclusion:

Our intent is not to point fingers. Our goal is to make it clear that these are large, complex issues that must be addressed with rigor, intellectual honesty and sophistication about the broader foreign policy and economic implications. Defense spending is not arithmetic, it is calculus—and it is hard.

Hard work is not what Congress is noted for, so the unasked question is whether or not there are enough grownups in DC with the highlighted skill set to make mature decisions and avoid the "business as usual" drill?

Is this a self-answering question?

Somali Pirates: A "User Pays" Bill in U.S. Congress for US Navy Anti-Piracy Action

This Gun for Hire?

Who should pay for a ship of the United States Navy coming to the aid of a non-U.S. flag merchant ship or fishing vessel or yacht? A bill introduced by New Jersey Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R) in the U.S. House of Representatives poses an answer. in H.R.2839 -- Piracy Suppression Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH):

SEC. 3. REIMBURSEMENT FOR ACTIONS TAKEN TO PROTECT FOREIGN-FLAGGED VESSELS FROM PIRACY.

(a) In General- Chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 410. Reimbursement for actions taken to protect foreign-flagged vessels from piracy

`(a) In General- The Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating--
`(1) determine the full cost to the United States of each action taken by the United States to protect or defend a vessel that is not documented under the laws of the United States from a pirate attack, including the cost of each action by the United States to deter such attack; and
`(2) seek reimbursement for such cost from the country under the laws of which the vessel for which protection or defense was provided is documented, which shall be credited back to the appropriations charged for such cost.
`(b) Reimbursements- Reimbursement under this section may be waived if--
`(1) such country contributes military forces to the Combined Maritime Forces' Combined Task Force-151 within 180 days of the action taken;
`(2) such country deploys military forces to the Indian Ocean or Gulf of Aden to deter, prevent, or defend vessels from pirate attack within 180 days of the action taken;
`(3) such country assists in the prosecution or detention of pirates; or
`(4) the President determines it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so.'

Emphasis added. All those flag of convenience countries better check their treasuries or mandate insurance coverage for this sort of "reimbursement."

In economic terms, this bill is designed to take care of the "free rider" problem.

The bill also proposes a government funded training program for U.S. mariners concerning piracy, including:

3) tactics for defense of a vessel, including instruction on the types, use, and limitations of security equipment;
`(4) standard rules for the use of force for self defense as developed by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating under section 912(c) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-281; 46 U.S.C. 8107 note), including instruction on firearm safety for crewmembers of vessels carrying cargo under section 55305 of this title

And a criticism of this last provision at OpenMarket.org posing the question "Do We Really Need Government-Funded Anti-Piracy Training?":

And are we expected to believe that the maritime industry hasn’t, you know, thought to tell crew members about piracy risks? Or, even if the crews are officially kept in the dark by some sort of twisted corporate policy (they aren’t), that they haven’t bothered to look into this piracy stuff on their own? Perhaps a single Google search before leaving port (the Internet can be really, really slow on the high seas)?

An email from my Congressman

When the vote on the "cap and trade bill" bill was pending before the U.S. House of Representatives, I dispatched a little note to my representative, urging him to vote against the bill. Here's his response from yesterday in blue, with my comments in red:

Dear Mr. X:

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). I appreciate hearing from you [I'm sure you do not, since I disagree with you].

For too long, our country's dependence on foreign petroleum products [so we should be drilling off our own shores and developing oil shale and coal gasification projects, right?] and other non-renewable sources of energy [if you mean all that coal and natural gas and domestic oil that provide jobs for Americans why don't you say so? Do you consider uranium used in non-air polluting nuclear reactors as "non-renewable?"] has undermined our national security [another argument for drilling on our own shores and developing oil shale, bio fuels and etc.], polluted the air [So, assuming we stop buying "foreign oil" (too bad for you Canada and Mexico) then no other country will then rush forward to buy that oil and use it, often in ways far more polluting than in the ways we use it?- doesn't, in fact, the U.S. use of oil, under the guidelines for pollution already existing actually benefit the planet? Further, wasn't it under the guise of "clean air" that we adopted all those ethanol standards that resulted in lowering gas mileage and increasing pollution from ethanol plants and increasing food and other prices?] and delayed development of alternative forms of energy [hard to drive your car using wind or solar power - but I understand bio-diesel and other synfuel projects show promise]. ACES moves our country away from this dangerous dependence on foreign oil and toward energy Independence [so would "drill here, drill now" but I bet you don't support that]. ACES sets forth a comprehensive energy framework that limits carbon emissions [which may or may not be a problem], promotes utilization of renewable energies [tax incentives that distort the market] and provides incentives for the development of green jobs [i.e. throws tax money at the problem in hopes that something might work, rather than allowing the market system to work through the problem at less expense to tax payers - and which really only may replace jobs lost due to other Congressional mandates].

ACES requires electric suppliers that sell more than four million megawatt hours of electricity to consumers per year to meet a percentage of their load with renewable energy forms beginning in 2012 [Congressman: Do you have a wind turbine on your beach or mountain property? See the photo above -looks lovely, doesn't it? Do you want one visible from your front window? Wood is a "renewable resource - is it okay for power plants to convert to burning trees?How about building some more hydroelectric dams? Might that cause some endangered species issues? More nuke power plants? Can we store the nuclear waste in your backyard?]. ACES also limits the amount of greenhouse gases that certain industrial and large-scale emitters release into the air [what if your understanding of greenhouse gases is wrong - is it worth placing the cost of this on the tax paying public until the research is better understood on a scientific basis?]. ACES requires that by 2020, greenhouse gas emissions are cut by at least 17 percent below 2005 levels [which factories in your district will close and move overseas, taking their jobs with them in order to avoid this cut and the ones that are sure to follow?]. This reduction is equal to removing 500,000,000 cars from the roads [Since the U.S. doesn't have 500,000, 000 cars on the road, exactly which other countries burden are we picking up here at our expense?].

The bill's clean energy requirements will stimulate private sector investment in energy technologies and will create an estimated 51,000 new jobs in North Carolina [Exactly how will this bill do that? I note in the next sentence you offer up incentives for private sector "initiatives" - shouldn't the "clean energy requirements" be stimulation enough as you imply here?]. In addition to promoting private sector investment in energy technologies, ACES will fund renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives [?], including the following: a financial assistance program for retooling existing factories for the manufacture of electric vehicles [electricity produced how, exactly? Nuke power plans, coal fired plants, hydroelectric dams, wind farms on your beaches? - and what do we do with those used batteries that electric cars will generate?], a program to develop and commercialize clean energy technologies [what a wonderfully meaningless phrase] , grants to community development organizations to promote energy conservation in low-income rural and urban communities [paying off some political debt to "community development organizations" by soaking tax payers to tell people to go around shutting off air conditioners, televisions and riding mass transit?] and grants to colleges to develop programs of study that prepare students for careers in renewable energy and energy efficiency [we used to call that "engineering school" where they earned "engineering degrees" - many colleges in North Carolina already have such programs - UNC Charlotte, North Carolina State and Duke come to mind - and I'll bet there are lots of programs at the community college level, too, already].

With a combination of price spike protections, energy refunds and cost-saving technology [How, by re-distributing tax payer money from the "wealthy?"], this bill will protect consumers [From who or what, exactly? Congressional mandates that will raise prices? Community organizers?], keep costs low [How, again?], and protect current jobs [Except those in the auto, coal, oil, refining and natural gas industries] by helping energy-intensive industries transition to a cleaner, more profitable future [How, exactly? What's the profit model you envision, exactly?]. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the legislation would cost a typical American household less than a postage stamp per day, or less than $111 a year [Give me cite to this one . . and over what time period? If I have to replace my cars, my refrigerator, air conditioning and heating units, redo my windows and re-insulate my house, it's gonna cost me more than that per year]. Lower income households will see no cost increases [Is that because you are shifting the cost to actual tax paying households?]; in fact, the Congressional Budget Office found that the legislation would actually save lower-income households $40 per year [And which year will that be?]. To maintain fiscal responsibility, the bill will not increase the deficit over the next ten years [Meaning until its provisions kick in?].

Though the bill is not perfect [Not even close], I believe it is a step in the right direction [Sometimes, Congressman, it's better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, even if you have good motives]. On June 26, 2009, ACES came before the House for a vote. I voted for the bill and it passed by a margin of 219-212 [Imagine that - 212 Representatives who don't agree with you on this bill - they must be really dumb]. The bill has been referred to the Senate for further action.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this issue. Please contact me about other issues important to you. [Count on it][By the way, I'm sure you set a good example by walking from North Carolina to Washington or taking your electric car or solar powered airplane or train, right? And your house is solar or geothermal powered with your own wind turbine and every appliance you own meets the highest energy savings standard, including the use of those mercury polluting energy saving light bulbs? Right?]

Sincerely,

Brad Miller
Member of Congress

Meanwhile.. in the U.S. Idiots Want to Take Control of Refineries

As set out by Lex in Getting all ahead of themselves:

“We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.” - Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)

Link: sevenload.com

Near as I can tell from his bio, Mr. Hinchey has never run a business for profit.

The "Hidden Costs" of Having Idiots in Congress

The Democrats in Congress have found the "hidden cost" of the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements and it's really, really big, according tothis:

The total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could balloon to $3.5 trillion over the next decade because of such "hidden" costs as oil market disruptions, foregone investments, long-term health care for veterans and interest payments on borrowed war funding, according to a report released by congressional Democrats on Tuesday.

Well, dog my cat, but I believe this is the first time this particular group of idiots have ever tried to figure out the "hidden cost" of anything.

What about a look at the "hidden costs" of the War of Poverty, which has been going
on for what, 40+ years? Economist Thomas Sowell wrote of that noble effort:

The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society -- and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word "liberal" so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and quickly degenerated into new slums. Many of these projects later had to be demolished. Unfortunately, the assumptions behind those projects were not demolished, but live on in other disastrous programs, such as Section 8 housing.

Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed.

The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the "root causes" of crime and creating new "rights" for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed.

The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.

In 2004, after the spending of billions and billions of dollars ($5 trillion?), we made some progress, but:

Or what about the U.S. Department of Education which oversees a large budget of

...about $67.2 billion per year—$57.5 billion in discretionary appropriations and $9.7 billion in mandatory appropriations—and operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve more than 14,000 school districts and approximately 56 million students attending some 94,000 public schools and 28,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 10 million postsecondary students.

That said, it is important to point out that education in America is primarily a State and local responsibility, and ED's budget is only a small part of both total national education spending

You know, over a few years, $67 billion per year could add up to real money. And you still end up with a educational system in which 50% of the students will be below average. And the national total of state and local money spent on education is about $1 trillion per year, so figure the costs of forgone investments, interest and long term health care for teachers (not to mention pensions) and you probably get to quite a number. And we know the education system is broken, because every years there's a new announcement to that effect that also specifies that with just a little more "investment" by the taxpayers, all the students will be above average,in defiance of all logic (see here).

More recently, Congress has been helping us all out by mandating increased use of ethanol, which has had the effect of not lowering gas prices, raising food prices and doing virtually nothing to improve the environment (and it may be making it worse). See here:

Congress has decided to use our tax payer dollars to raise the price of food, increase the cost of motor fuels, and promote global warming. One could make the case Congressional action has also increased malnutrition, hunger, and disease. And why did Congress fund this immoral program? Because our politicians leaders are locked in a nasty battle for political power. It was a politically expedient decision. A pop-culture solution.

Thanks for all the help. Those "hidden costs" are killing us.