Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
We have had the public trained in socialism through many years of public schools.
As a statesman, you have the responsibility to lead your constituency in the proper direction. As you consider whether this will be a continuation of socialism or an alternative, you may want to consider a number of quotes by Thomas Jefferson.
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe ." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Require Publication of Research by Public Grant Receivers
An article by Britt Erickson in the November 28 issue of C&E News is entitled "Open Access Movement Grows". It concerns the availability of scholarly articles on the sciences and humanities to the general public.
The previous argument was whether university scientists should be required to publish their research in publicly available journals. Many scientists believed this should not be a requirement, in spite of the fact that they had received taxpayer funds in the form of government grants to support their research. My previous opinion was that publication should be a requirement, because in the acceptance of public funds, the grant receiver gives up his right to privacy. I maintain that position.
However, the argument has changed. Nine years ago a group of advocates, for publication and availability to the general public of such scholarly articles, held an open meeting called Berlin 9 Open Access Conference. With each subsequent annual meeting, support has grown to open publication. The theory has been that with the increase of such research publishing, science and humanity development will be enhanced. After nine years, this seems to be correct. There have been many more published articles and even the introduction of public access journals.
This indirectly supports my contention that those persons who receive government money have an obligation to return something of value to those supplying the funds; namely taxpayers.
The previous argument was whether university scientists should be required to publish their research in publicly available journals. Many scientists believed this should not be a requirement, in spite of the fact that they had received taxpayer funds in the form of government grants to support their research. My previous opinion was that publication should be a requirement, because in the acceptance of public funds, the grant receiver gives up his right to privacy. I maintain that position.
However, the argument has changed. Nine years ago a group of advocates, for publication and availability to the general public of such scholarly articles, held an open meeting called Berlin 9 Open Access Conference. With each subsequent annual meeting, support has grown to open publication. The theory has been that with the increase of such research publishing, science and humanity development will be enhanced. After nine years, this seems to be correct. There have been many more published articles and even the introduction of public access journals.
This indirectly supports my contention that those persons who receive government money have an obligation to return something of value to those supplying the funds; namely taxpayers.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
The B-1 Bomber and Terrorism
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
I read your newsletter.
I agree with your position on the B-1 bomber. President Obama has shown weakness to all potential foreign aggressors, and this is not the time to be significantly reducing our military might; not for aggression but for protection. I can also understand your pandering to Dyess Air Force Base for vote getting, but I hate to see it put in the same category as national defense.
It's nice to hear what the House is doing on the payroll tax extension, but what are you doing personally?
With regard to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I disagree with your position. Government must be required to arrest any US citizen suspected of having committed or planning to commit terrorism against the United States. The law should include conditions for speedy trial, rather than an indefinite hold at a place such as Guantánamo.
Merry Christmas!
Randy,
I read your newsletter.
I agree with your position on the B-1 bomber. President Obama has shown weakness to all potential foreign aggressors, and this is not the time to be significantly reducing our military might; not for aggression but for protection. I can also understand your pandering to Dyess Air Force Base for vote getting, but I hate to see it put in the same category as national defense.
It's nice to hear what the House is doing on the payroll tax extension, but what are you doing personally?
With regard to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I disagree with your position. Government must be required to arrest any US citizen suspected of having committed or planning to commit terrorism against the United States. The law should include conditions for speedy trial, rather than an indefinite hold at a place such as Guantánamo.
Merry Christmas!
Monday, December 19, 2011
Excess Spending Through Federal Agencies
To Rep. Ralph Hall:
I am faxing you a detailed two-page article, which appeared in the December 12 issue of Chemical and Engineering News and which is entitled, Science Agencies Hold Their Own".
You will notice in that article that Congress has passed budgets for the so-called "science " branches of government. The new budgets total about $50 billion.
You are mentioned as being one of the leaders in the passage of the various bills involved in this budgeting, and I take this opportunity to criticize your judgment in leading to a budget, which essentially maintains the previous level of taxpayer expenditures in these areas. This is done at a time when we have a gross deficiency in federal budget balancing. You may be impressed by the "science" designation of the various agencies. However, I can assure you that as a PhD scientist with experience in business, I can strongly assure you that you have arranged to continue wasting considerable taxpayer money.
I am faxing you a detailed two-page article, which appeared in the December 12 issue of Chemical and Engineering News and which is entitled, Science Agencies Hold Their Own".
You will notice in that article that Congress has passed budgets for the so-called "science " branches of government. The new budgets total about $50 billion.
You are mentioned as being one of the leaders in the passage of the various bills involved in this budgeting, and I take this opportunity to criticize your judgment in leading to a budget, which essentially maintains the previous level of taxpayer expenditures in these areas. This is done at a time when we have a gross deficiency in federal budget balancing. You may be impressed by the "science" designation of the various agencies. However, I can assure you that as a PhD scientist with experience in business, I can strongly assure you that you have arranged to continue wasting considerable taxpayer money.
EPA Revises Boiler Regulations
To: Calvin M. Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council
Congratulations to you on your success in forcing the EPA to reduce their stringent requirements for pollution control on industrial boilers. Attached is an article in Chemical and Engineering News, which elaborates on this topic.
The article says that in the reduced number of targets for the regulations, the application would involve only 1% of the industrial boilers in the US, However, it is also said that the cost to businesses will be about $2.3 billion annually, with a potential life-saving potential of reducing premature deaths by 8100.
You have complimented the EPA for reducing the number of industrial boilers, to which the restrictions will apply. However, the lack of detail brings up some questionable factors. For example, an outright expenditure of $2.3 billion may or may not prevent 8100 premature deaths annually. The question is whether these people would be dying of something else anyhow and how the EPA could come up with that number in the first place. The other lacking detail is on the specific pollutants and the concentrations that which they present a hazard? If CO2 control is involvement in the restriction, it is a ridiculous assertion to do so. S02 has already been controlled for many years and has drastically reduced acid rain. There would seem to be no basis for further reduction of SO2 concentration. Some control of NOx and mercury would seem advisable, but we need to consider the levels to which they should be reduced.
You have made considerable progress with the EPA, I encourage you to continue to press them for practical controls, which will have some economic and health benefits.
Congratulations to you on your success in forcing the EPA to reduce their stringent requirements for pollution control on industrial boilers. Attached is an article in Chemical and Engineering News, which elaborates on this topic.
The article says that in the reduced number of targets for the regulations, the application would involve only 1% of the industrial boilers in the US, However, it is also said that the cost to businesses will be about $2.3 billion annually, with a potential life-saving potential of reducing premature deaths by 8100.
You have complimented the EPA for reducing the number of industrial boilers, to which the restrictions will apply. However, the lack of detail brings up some questionable factors. For example, an outright expenditure of $2.3 billion may or may not prevent 8100 premature deaths annually. The question is whether these people would be dying of something else anyhow and how the EPA could come up with that number in the first place. The other lacking detail is on the specific pollutants and the concentrations that which they present a hazard? If CO2 control is involvement in the restriction, it is a ridiculous assertion to do so. S02 has already been controlled for many years and has drastically reduced acid rain. There would seem to be no basis for further reduction of SO2 concentration. Some control of NOx and mercury would seem advisable, but we need to consider the levels to which they should be reduced.
You have made considerable progress with the EPA, I encourage you to continue to press them for practical controls, which will have some economic and health benefits.
Anti-regulatory Action
Anti-Regulatory Action
Fax to Rep. Lamar S. Smith and Rep.Geoff Davis:
Congratulations to both of you for your sponsorship of HR 3010 and HR 10, respectively. Attached is an article from the December 12 issue of Chemical and Engineering News concerning this sponsorship.
The third bill HR 527 was apparently passed on December 1. There is nothing in C&E News indicating the sponsorship. But congratulations to whichever representative was involved in that. Collectively, these bills on anti-regulatory action are a significant step forward in reestablishing economic superiority of the US. Hopefully, they will help in recovering from the damage done by Pres. Obama and his Administration.
Unfortunately, we recognize that the Senate is not likely to pass these bills, and the President will likely veto them. However, you have made a considerable step forward in your presentation, since we anticipate political control of the Senate and the Presidency in the next election. At that time, I ask you to reintroduce these bills to the Senate, so that we will have the possibility of actual progress
Fax to Rep. Lamar S. Smith and Rep.Geoff Davis:
Congratulations to both of you for your sponsorship of HR 3010 and HR 10, respectively. Attached is an article from the December 12 issue of Chemical and Engineering News concerning this sponsorship.
The third bill HR 527 was apparently passed on December 1. There is nothing in C&E News indicating the sponsorship. But congratulations to whichever representative was involved in that. Collectively, these bills on anti-regulatory action are a significant step forward in reestablishing economic superiority of the US. Hopefully, they will help in recovering from the damage done by Pres. Obama and his Administration.
Unfortunately, we recognize that the Senate is not likely to pass these bills, and the President will likely veto them. However, you have made a considerable step forward in your presentation, since we anticipate political control of the Senate and the Presidency in the next election. At that time, I ask you to reintroduce these bills to the Senate, so that we will have the possibility of actual progress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
