Conflicting eyewitness accounts notwithstanding, Saturday’s tragic mid-air collision of a Piper Saratoga and a sightseeing Eurocopter over the west bank of the Hudson likely resulted from the Saratoga pilot’s desperate and ill-fated attempts to avoid a collision. As the news reports have indicated, the airspace over the Hudson from the surface to 1,200 feet above ground level is a congested “VFR” (visual flight rules) corridor carved out of the otherwise very busy and controlled Class B airspace enveloping, like an upside down wedding cake, New York City’s three major airports, JFK, Laguardia and Newark. Airplanes, helicopters and blimps are required to self announce on a common traffic advisory frequency, self separate from conflicting traffic and fly on the right side of the river (west bank southbound and east bank northbound). The VFR traffic is thus compressed laterally (by the controlled airspace boundaries defined by either bank of the river) and vertically (by the VFR corridor ceiling).

Both the plane and the helicopter were headed southbound along the west bank (NJ side).  Eyewitness reports confirm that the plane was behind (or north of) the helicopter. Although many eyewitnesses report that the plane was below and flew up into the helicopter, these witnesses are likely mistaken. It is easy to tell which one of the two aircraft was behind the other,  given that they were both traveling in the same direction. However, it is nearly impossible from the ground to tell which one was a few feet above or below the other.

Eyewitness accounts uniformly report that the Saratoga pilot engaged in a radical evasive maneuver—a steep bank turn to avoid the collision.  While many said the plane was below the helicopter and flew up into it, the evidence suggests otherwise. First, the dramatic photographs taken by the ferry passenger clearly show the right wing of the Saratoga entirely off the plane. This requires a powerful and explosive impact—one sufficient to tear off the wing and the underlying superstructure—the main wing spar, an airplane’s equivalent to a beam or girder. This suggests that the airplane’s right wing, while in the steep bank, made contact with the helicopter's main rotor blades, which sheared the wing and its spar off the Saratoga, and as well resulted in the rotor blades separating from the helicopter. Eyewitness accounts also report seeing the helicopter blades falling to the river separated from the body of the helicopter. In addition, all the photographs show the helicopter leading the way down, after the crash, suggesting of course that the plane was above the helicopter at impact. The Saratoga is a low wing plane—wings attached to the bottom of the fuselage—making it impossible for the pilot to see what is directly beneath him at any given instant.

From this evidence, the most likely scenario is this. Both the plane and the helicopter were travelling southbound along the west bank at the same altitude. It remains to be seen whether either was equipped with TCAS or one of the other light plane systems available for alerting pilots to conflicting traffic. Undoubtedly the plane was overtaking the helicopter, probably at a closure rate approaching 100 miles per hour, given that the helicopter was on a sightseeing mission and of course can hover. At a closure rate of 100 miles per hour, 150 feet of linear separation evaporates each second. So, if the Saratoga pilot visually picked up the helicopter when he was 450 feet behind him, he had a mere 3 seconds to react. If he almost instantly inputted a steep turn to the NJ side of the river, he likely would have been over the helicopter on knife edge—right wing down, left wing up—mere seconds later. Even if the plane were slightly higher than the helicopter when the turn was initiated, planes tend to lose altitude in a steep bank (unless the pilot hauls back on the yoke) for two reasons. First the plane picks up effective weight due to the centrifugal force imposed by carving a steep turn. Second, the lift, which acts opposite the wings, is deflected from the vertical plane (downward) while in straight and level flight, to the horizontal plane (sideways), when the plane is on knife edge (in 90 degrees of bank). Thus a steeply banking plane effectively weighs more and generates less lift acting opposite to gravity—so it sinks. Likely then the Saratoga dipped as it banked hard right, causing its right wing to hit the helicopter’s main rotor blades resulting in an unsurvivable crash for each. Doubtless a slew of non-pilot legislators will react shortly with abundant solutions.

Stephen B. Meister

A shrewd campaigner, Barack Obama capitalized on anti-Bush sentiment by proclaiming himself the Un-Bush and blaming the Bush Administration for the issues de jour—initially the war in Iraq and then the economic crisis. But the Un-Bush Doctrine did not lose steam with Obama’s election. Faced with an economic crisis, Obama found it expedient to continue the Bush blame game. By faulting the Bush Administration for all our Country’s ills, Obama, with Nancy Pelosi’s help, was able to push through a $787 Billion social spending bill, offering no economic stimulus whatever.   So why not take the Un-Bush Doctrine into the foreign policy arena? Obama launched his Spring Apology Tour among NATO nations, openly apologizing for what he himself characterized as “U.S. arrogance,” bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, ordered the shuttering of Guantanamo Bay, eliminated the term “enemy combatant,” renamed the “Global War on Terror” the “Overseas Contingency Operations,” released the “enhanced interrogation techniques” Justice Department memos, merely issued a statement “strongly condemning” Kim Jong Ill’s illegal test firing of a missile over Japan, and has done nothing to halt Iran’s imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons, despite Israel’s openly stated intention to act if the U.S. fails to act. 

Quick to pile on, Nancy Pelosi has unleashed hypocritical and false attacks on the Bush Administration’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” against high value detainees, Al Qaeda lieutenant, Abu Zubaydah, and 9/11 WTC attack mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Waterboarding was used on these out-of-uniform civilian mass murderers in the post 9/11 environment in a desperate attempt to garner intelligence on and stop the second wave of attacks then on the drawing boards. The information procured by the CIA in these interrogation sessions saved countless American lives and halted the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge. As Obama’s own CIA head, Leon Panetta, has confirmed, Speaker Pelosi is lying about not having known that enhanced interrogation techniques were being used—she was briefed specifically about the techniques by the CIA in 2002. 

Enhanced privilege with respect to persons who threaten not-yet-committed crimes is no stranger to the civilized world. Lawyers and psychologists alike are privileged—if not compelled—to break client/patient confidences when they learn about a crime about to be committed. Every day U.S. prosecutors threaten prosecution and incarceration while simultaneously offering plea  bargains to their targets in order to obtain evidence from them against the “bigger fish”—other higher value criminal targets. Is not such a prosecutorial threat of incarceration a form of mental torture designed to flush out valuable information?

The debate about what constitutes illegal torture—in the context of a high value terrorist detainee with information about future attacks versus interrogation of a soldier in uniform who has attacked only other uniformed soldiers—is one for which there is no bright line. Reasonable persons can and do differ on the answer. But the moral calculus always is this: what enhanced interrogation techniques are justified in an effort to procure the critical intelligence necessary to thwart future attacks and save innocent civilian lives?

The moral calculus under the Un-Bush Doctrine though is quite different: How far should we go in risking the lives of American soldiers and civilians in our effort to prove to the world our condemnation of Bush? Obama, Pelosi and the liberal vanguard proudly wear the Bush bashing Un-Bush label like Republicans where a flag pin. It is their way of apologizing to the world and taking (or so they think) the moral high ground. If you don’t think the Un-Bush Doctrine will cost innocent lives one day consider the recent Somali pirate standoff. 

Obama issued an order to shoot to kill the three pirates but only if and when Captain Phillips’ life was placed in “imminent danger.” After many tense hours during which the Navy Snipers had the three pirates in their crosshairs, there came a point, while the lifeboat was being towed, at which one of the three pirates pointed an AK-47 automatic rifle at the back of the head of a bound Captain Phillips. It is a well known medical phenomenon that a man holding a gun with his hand on the trigger can experience “involuntary trigger squeeze” when shot unless the single kill shot is a perfect head shot, instantly immobilizing the victim’s autonomic nervous system. Thus, in addition to heavy seas, darkness, moving targets, and a moving shooting platform, the Navy Sniper assigned the pirate holding the gun on Phillip’s head, had to pass a bullet directly into the center of the pirate’s brain, in order to avoid “involuntary trigger squeeze.” The snipers passed up several opportunities, during the many tense hours they waited on the Bainbridge’s fantail deck with the pirates in the crosshairs of their scopes during which no automatic weapon was aimed at Captain Phillips’ head. Obama could have simply issued a clean, clear and unconditional order—“kill the pirates and rescue the Captain.”   The Somali pirate incident unexpectedly thrust Obama into a situation where HE actually had to make a tough decision rather than just Monday morning quarterback those made by President Bush following the 9/11 attacks.  Given the choice between making the right decision—unconditionally ordering the pirates killed and the Captain saved but being compared to Bush—or risking the Captain's life but safeguarding against the Bush-Obama comparison—Obama decided  that it was better to risk Phillips' life than Obama's anti-Bush reputation.

While Pelosi’s falsified anti-Bush rants go unchecked, it would appear Obama has realized the Un-Bush Doctrine is risking American lives—both civilians and soldiers alike. That is doubtless why he just changed position on releasing classified detainee photographs.   Criticism of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” must be accompanied by reasoned alternatives. Has anyone heard what Obama and Pelosi propose instead of waterboarding? Simple questioning? Obama and Pelosi must be pressed for their solution. Absent a reasoned and practical alternative, the Un-Bush Doctrine is nothing but unconstructive criticism—an effort to bash Bush unaccompanied by any proactive policy to keep Americans safe. Worse though, Obama’s Un-Bush Doctrine nearly cost Captain Phillips his life, and may cost us—god forbid—millions of American lives given Iran’s near nuclear capability. If Israel fails to halt Iran’s nuclear program, the threat to the U.S. is just as real as the threat to Tel Aviv. While Iran cannot reach the U.S. with a GPS guided missile, they will be more than happy to give a nuclear warhead to Al Qaeda so they can quietly float the warhead into one of our ports and murder millions of Americans.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution declares that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” Let’s take a quick look at how Barrack Obama has handled his role as Supreme Commander of all U.S. military forces since coming into office three months ago.

Recently, four Somali pirates toting automatic weapons boarded the U.S. flagged Mearsk Alabama in International Waters far off the coast of Somalia, mounting the deck of the cargo ship from their small skiff using grappling hooks and ropes. Though the crew had no guns, they outnumbered the pirates five to one. One brave crewman managed to separate the pirate leader from the rest of the brigands, and thrust an ice pick into the hand of the pirate leader, who the crew then overwhelmed and bound. Despite the weapons brandished by the pirates while the crew had none, a standoff ensued. Because the pirates had scuttled their small boat, they demanded an escape boat, fuel and food. To break the deadlock, Captain Richard Phillips, volunteered to make himself a hostage and board the 18 foot lifeboat with the three departing pirates on condition that the pirates leave as a counter-hostage their injured, bound leader with the remaining crew. The crew and the pirates agreed that once the three pirates boarded the lifeboat with Phillips, they would release Phillips and the crew would untie their injured leader. The deal was struck and Captain Phillips boarded the escape boat. As soon as the three pirates and Captain Phillips boarded their lifeboat, the crew held up their end of the bargain and freed the injured pirate leader, who remained aboard the Mearsk Alabama. But the three pirates broke their end of the bargain and refused to free Captain Phillips, instead demanding that the Mearsk Alabama follow the lifeboat to Somalia, where they would have imprisoned the crew and its Captain, while the pirates negotiated a hefty ransom. The two vessels then began their slow trip toward Somalia.

Dawn the next day, the U.S. Bainbridge, a Navy Destroyer, arrived on the scene. The injured pirate leader was taken into custody aboard the Destroyer and began to negotiate for the release of his fellow pirates, who remained aboard the small lifeboat with Captain Phillips. Navy snipers, who were not aboard the Bainbridge when it was assigned the mission of saving Phillips, were secretly flown to the Bainbridge and parachuted onto the fantail deck of the Destroyer outside of the pirates’ line of sight. The Navy Seal snipers took their hidden positions on the fantail deck of the Bainbridge, and the pirates eventually agreed to be towed behind the Destroyer in its large wake in order to get into smoother waters and out of the heavy open seas.

The small lifeboat had an indoor pilothouse so that at any given time one or more pirates were indoors and not in plain sight. Phillips had made one escape attempt (I believe before the lifeboat was being towed) by jumping overboard and swimming for the Bainbridge, but the pirates shot at him with their automatic weapons and managed to get Phillips back on board the lifeboat, after which he was bound. 

Barrack Obama, in his capacity as Commander in Chief, issued an order to shoot to kill the three pirates but only if and when Captain Phillips’ life was in “imminent danger.” After many tense hours during which the Navy Snipers had the three pirates in their crosshairs, there came a point, while the lifeboat was being towed, at which one of the three pirates pointed an AK-47 automatic rifle at the back of the head of a bound Captain Phillips. At this moment one of the three pirates was indoors—in the pilothouse. It is a well known medical phenomenon that a man holding a gun with his hand on the trigger can experience “involuntary trigger squeeze” when shot unless the single kill shot is a perfect head shot, instantly immobilizing the victim’s autonomic nervous system. 

Thus, in addition to heavy seas, darkness, moving targets including one indoor target, and a moving shooting platform, the Navy Snipers had to deliver three perfect shots—each had one shot to make one kill. The sniper assigned the pirate holding the gun on Phillip’s head, had to pass a bullet directly into the center of the pirate’s brain, in order to avoid “involuntary trigger squeeze” and “mission failure”—Phillips’ death.

Due to the conditional nature of the Supreme Commander’s order, the snipers’ commander could only give the shoot order once Captain Phillips’ life was in “imminent danger.” It is well known, and has been reported by various respected news media, that the snipers passed up several opportunities, during the many tense hours they waited on the Destroyer’s fantail deck with the pirates in the crosshairs of their scopes. During these many passed over opportunities, no automatic weapon was aimed at Captain Phillips’ head and therefore at those times there was no the risk of “involuntary trigger squeeze” and Captain Phillips’ death as a result. Eventually, after waiting many hours and passing up many low risk opportunities, Captain Phillips’ life was placed in “imminent danger” when one of the pirates—with his hand on the trigger—pointed an AK-47 at the back of Phillips’ head—and at just at that ultra-high risk moment, exactly as our Commander in Chief had ordered—the shoot order was given, our Navy Seals each made their perfect single kill shots, and Phillips was saved.

Mr. Obama could have simply issued a clean, clear and unconditional order—“kill the pirates and rescue the Captain.” And that’s exactly what a true leader—any man who is willing to undertake the responsibility of being Commander in Chief—would have done. But Obama did no such thing. Instead, he, as usual, placed his own political career ahead of the life and safety of the brave Captain Phillips, who had volunteered to place his own life in “imminent danger” in a heroic attempt to save the lives of his crew. By giving the weasel order he gave—“shoot if and only if the Captain’s life is in ‘imminent danger’”—Obama made sure he avoided being labeled “Bush-like” or hawkish in his reaction, but managed simultaneously to take credit for a successful outcome. Obama thus made the jobs of our Navy Snipers exponentially more difficult and exposed Captain Phillips to enormously more risk of being shot and killed, all in a calculated and intentional effort to hedge against political damage to himself. Can you think of a more selfish unleaderlike decision?

This innocent life-risking conditional order came from the same man who in his first three months of office, ran a “Spring Apology Tour” among NATO nations, wherein he openly apologized for what he himself characterized as “U.S. arrogance,” bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, shut down Guantanamo Bay, eliminated the term “enemy combatant,” renamed the “Global War on Terror” the “Overseas Contingency Operations,” released previously top secret memos detailing U.S. interrogation techniques as part of his continuing assault on President Bush, issued a statement “strongly condemning” Kim Jong Ill’s illegal test firing of a missile over Japan, and has done nothing to halt Iran’s imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons, despite Israel’s openly stated intention to act if the U.S. fails to act. After the pirate standoff was all over, Obama said the U.S is “resolved to halt the spread of piracy.” Wow, what a threat. Is he going to condemn piracy next? Defriend the pirates on Facebook? 

As the Joe who “no one messes” with himself observed in one of his many campaign trail gaffes, Obama will quickly be tested. Well Joe was right—Obama was tested—and he has failed miserably. The Somali pirates are now testing him further naming the U.S. their number one enemy even while they continue to hold hundreds of other hostages. Israel is going to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities any day. As it turns out, Obama’s sniveling order to the Navy did not result in Phillips’ death, but not due to Obama’s courage and conviction—he has none of either—but rather due solely to the courage and skill of our Navy snipers. The bad guys the world over now know that Obama is a sniveling, weak, chicken livered politician—not a Commander in Chief—and there will be hell to pay as a result—in the Middle East, on the High Seas and maybe in the Far East. 

Stephen Meister

And that’s where we are headed—if we follow Barack Obama’s lead. Let’s take a big step back and see if we can put the current economic crisis in long term historical perspective. Except for the recent past, mankind has endured a consistently miserable existence, barely better than our animal counterparts. We froze in the winters, suffered through blistering heat in the summers, were poorly clothed and sheltered, endured great famines, starvation, poor to non-existent sanitation, plagues and a panoply of horrific epidemics and diseases, all during a meager life expectancy of 20 to 30 years. Today, despite the current economic crisis, our greatest in more than a half century, the life expectancy of the average American is nearly 80 years, and by and large, we are still well fed, well clothed, well sheltered, and enjoy quality medical care and sanitary conditions. What great force delivered us from countless millennia of misery? 

The dramatic betterment of our lives did not come about gradually over the millennia, but rather in relatively rapid bursts traceable principally to two developments of great importance in human history—agriculture and free market capitalism. Agriculture began to emerge about 10,000 years ago, ending our nomadic ways and enabling us to congregate in permanent clusters of humanity—our future cites. While our lot then improved substantially, the really big change would not occur for another ten millennia, when free market capitalism took hold as an outgrowth of the Industrial Revolution of the late 18^th and 19^th centuries. Under free market capitalism, the per capita gross domestic product of the Western World increased exponentially during the twentieth century.

My grandfather walked 900 miles out of the Ukraine under cover of darkness in order to board a freighter bound for the United States, where he thought the “streets were paved with gold,” only to find that in order to sustain himself—there was no welfare back then—he would have to take a job manacling himself to a horse’s yoke and pulling, together with a fellow Russian immigrant, an otherwise horsedrawn cart from Manhattan’s lower eastside over the Brooklyn Bridge loaded with goods on summer days too hot for the horse. Less than a century later, my daughter must choose between a $4 Moca Latte and $3 Moca Chino at the local Starbucks a few blocks from the condo she shares with her roommate while attending a $50,000 per year University. What happened? Where would my daughter be today had my grandfather not walked out of the Ukraine at night? Did the Earth’s natural resources magically multiply from some mysterious cosmic event in the last century? 

The answer of course is free market capitalism—not religion, not philosophy, not even science, and most notably, not socialism or communism. Through the private ownership of the factors of production, coupled with the incentives to productivity inherent in a free market system, we have prospered like never before in human history. Our miserable existence came to an abrupt end in the twentieth century, when for the first time in history, we were blessed with a cornucopia of goods and services, quality medical care, sanitation, shelter, heat, air conditioning, personal computers, the internet, modern conveniences, and a plethora of labor saving devices. We drive big powerful air conditioned cars and fly in magnificently engineered jet powered aircraft, each whisking passengers from place to place in living room comfort, while in some parts of the world not yet touched by free market capitalism, mules, camels and horses are still the chief means of transportation of both humans and cargo. The vast majority of Americans today, even during this economic crisis, live better, cleaner, longer, higher quality lives than the feudal lords of medieval England, let alone their medieval working class counterparts.

Despite the stunning betterment of our day to day lives brought about by free market capitalism, many of us—most notably liberal democrats—complain endlessly and chronically about its failures and shortcomings.   And those who don’t complain are branded as selfish and unfeeling by those who do. The debate about free market capitalism’s failures consumes us—most recently, that debate resulted in the election of the most powerful leader of the free world, the 44^th president of the United States, Barack Obama. 

Peering through the lens offered by this historical perspective, then, let us look a bit more deeply at why we complain so much about the system that delivered us from hell on earth. Stripped down to its core, the plaintive cries of capitalism’s critics boil down to simply this—free market capitalism results in an unfair concentration of society’s wealth in a fortunate few. Ironically, this is the same criticism the oppressed peasantry of medieval times leveled at feudalism, only now the fortunate few are far more numerous, their ranks change constantly and their wealth is based on their own industry and hard work, not on a presumed birthright. These critics say that the concentration of wealth in a fortunate few is fundamentally wrong—despite that it is predicated on their own labors and not a birthright— and that that wrong can and must be righted by taking money from the “rich” and giving it to the poor. This they say can be achieved through federal tax policy. We hear statements from our own President — the leader of the greatest capitalist society in the world — like “it’s time to spread the wealth.”

But here’s the rub. And it’s a whopper. The entire free market capitalist system is based on incentive—the opportunity to turn a profit. Or said in the most raw political terms, capitalism is based on the opportunity each individual economic participant has to accumulate more than a per capita share of the aggregate goods and services produced by the society of which such individual is a member. Like it or not, the vast transformative power of capitalism stems from its very ability to yield a disproportionate concentration of wealth in a fortunate few. Indeed it is precisely that chance — the chance to “make it” — that forces many of us out of bed every day, that drives many of us to labor, innovate and most importantly take risk; and those labors, innovations and risk takings are the very actions which bring about our collective good fortune. Thus, through hard work and brilliant risk taking (investing) over a lifetime, Warren Buffet has accumulated many billions of dollars of wealth, which he is now privileged to spend on himself, others he selects, or give away as he sees fit—but not as Mr. Obama or Nancy Pelosi see fit.

Take away or dilute that incentive, and we on the whole would be inclined to work less, be less industrious, thereby producing less goods and services, which ultimately yields a lower standard of living for all. Is it really such a price to pay for deliverance from the misery in which we lived for countless millennia that an industrious few have a bit more of the collective pie, when in so doing, we are all swept along into an enormously enhanced standard of living? Free market capitalism has replaced starvation with obesity as the number one killer of human beings. What do you think a starving medieval peasant magically transported to modern times would say to our conundrum—obesity instead of starvation – but some have more than others?

A quick look at our patent laws is instructive. Our patent laws work to stop free market competition to protect the inventor. So if a leading drug company tomorrow announces it has just discovered the cure for cancer, that company can apply for and get a patent protecting its “ownership” of the new wonder drug. That patent has one purpose—to enable the patent owner to prevent other drug companies from making and dispensing the wonder drug.  The patent therefore will reduce the wonder drug’s availability and slow its distribution. Countless numbers will die as a result. Yet the patent laws remain on the books. Why? Because we know that absent those special incentives—permitting an even greater concentration of wealth than otherwise inheres in a capitalist system—we could never expect drug companies to fund the billions of dollars in research and development necessary to find cures to the world’s worst diseases. If, after the cure for cancer was found, President Obama and Congress were to suspend the patent laws as a humanitarian measure, how many future cures and wonder drugs do you think would be discovered? What is better for mankind long term, enforcing the patent laws or repealing them?

Let’s take a moment to revisit some of the redistributionist efforts of the past. Welfare —what did it accomplish? Slavery robbed the black man of his freedom; welfare robbed him of his dignity. What he (and welfare’s other recipients) needed was a job, an opportunity for an honest day’s work, not a hand out. The welfare state, as our former democratic President Bill Clinton realized, was a resounding failure. How about the unionization of the auto makers? The UAW, in an effort to “spread the wealth,” turned our three big automakers, once the pride of American industry, into a combination private unemployment insurance fund and HMO—with automotive sidelines. Loaded down with such impossible burdens, these once great manufacturers were turned into uncompetitive companies doomed to failure. Business is war—and they have lost the war.  More recently, we saw the results of a great government sponsored push for mortgages for all—according to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, every man deserved to own his own home, never mind if he had saved a down payment or had sufficient income to repay the loan. Lending money to persons incapable of repaying those borrowings created billions in toxic assets, bankrupted our financial system and led to the current crisis. Redistribution simply does not work. It inevitably leads to widespread economic failure. Our system is based on hard work and merit—any effort to undermine that economic meritocracy results in more pain for everyone in the long run.

So, one might ask, if capitalism is so wonderful, and its foundational principles so clear, how did we come to corrupt it so? That fascinating question brings us to the political arena—the intersection of economic theory and individual agendas. The political pendulum has a well demonstrated tendency to swing wildly to one direction and then the other. Not that long ago, we had no income tax in the United States. When it was first enacted in 1913, it met swift and strong legal challenges but our courts validated the tax. Then the tax was a mere 1% of income. In 1964, the highest marginal federal rate was mind-blowing 91%, exclusive of state and local taxes! Can you imagine a more punishing tax—a greater swing of the pendulum? Then, the pendulum swung back in the direction of smaller government and lower taxes under President Reagan’s leadership, and we all prospered greatly as a result. Most recently, having a suffered an economic downturn during the last few months of the Bush Administration—due almost entirely to unsound redistributionist policies and market interventions—the pendulum is now swinging once again back to perilous socialist heights.

But something is now different. More than the mere swinging of the political pendulum is at work now.   Where once, there were great ideological debates held in person, now, with cable television, the internet and bloated campaign coffers, our elected officials run political rock star competitions. Our presidential elections more closely resemble American Idol contests, than they do the presidential elections of yesteryear. In consequence our current crop of politicians more closely resemble celebrities than they do true leaders. They sell magazines with cover photos rather than argue in favor of sound ideologies. The field of politics, where once it attracted career military men and philosophical leaders, now frequently draws showmen suffering sometimes severe narcissistic tendencies. Consider the psychotic and self destructive behaviors of Governors Blagojevich and Spitzer. Congress is full of tax cheats, philanderers, and bribe taking influence peddlers.   As Mark Twain once quipped, “America is a nation without a distinct criminal class...with the possible exception of Congress."  

Such a system produced a president who did not hesitate to play the fear card in the middle of a downward fear driven spiral because it meant advancing his own agenda. Such a system also produced Nancy Pelosi, who, when defending a grossly irresponsible pork laden and bloated social spending bill she authored in the middle of a severe economic crisis, did not bother to defend her actions by reasoned argument but rather simply proclaimed “we won!” (so why shouldn’t my bill be full of pork). That such a thought would even bubble to the surface of the Ms. Pelosi’s brain—let alone that she would have the temerity to say it out loud—is symptomatic of a tragic breakdown of our political system. The system is so popularized and “celebrity-centric” that President Obama was able to make his most vocal critics trusted cabinet members—Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden—politicians who, when running against Mr. Obama for the democratic nomination, did not hesitate to point out his complete lack of experience, calling to attention that he was an Illinois State Senator a mere four years ago. Nor did Mr. Obama hesitate to nominate a tax cheat as Treasury Secretary, or a well known Washington influence peddler and tax cheat as Secretary of Health and Human Services in the face of his push for a “new era of responsibility.” These egregious hypocrisies would never have been tolerated years ago, before the “celebritization” of our politicians, who are now packaged and marketed by their Madison Avenue handlers and judged by their rhetorical skills and not whether they stand behind their—or for that matter any—principles.

 To compound these deficiencies, our now firmly entrenched progressive system of taxation, ineluctably leads to startlingly mercenary campaign tactics bearing no relation whatever to sound fiscal policy. In our one man one vote democratic republic, how difficult is it to convince the bottom 51% of taxpayers to vote for a politician who promises to decrease their share of the national tax burden? As it now stands, before any Obama revisions, the bottom 50% of taxpayers, pay a jaw dropping 3% of the national tax burden while the top 10% of taxpayers pay over 70% of the national tax burden. As an election strategy in a one man one vote democracy, guarantying the bottom 50% of the taxpayers you will decrease their paltry 3% share of the burden even further—if not give them money outright—while increasing the 97% share paid by the top 50% of taxpayers, is simply unbeatable. Ironically, the adoption of a progressive system of taxation in a one man one vote democratic republic leads to exactly the sort of “taxation without representation” that gave rise to the Boston Tea Party and ultimately the American Revolution, as the top taxpayers are simply to few in number to compete with the numbers of votes the bottom taxpayers can offer an ambitious and unprincipled politician.

Imagine just for a moment, how our elections would change, if we voted for our elected officials the way corporate America votes for directors—not one man one vote, but one share one vote, where voting power is based on “skin in the game.” Imagine an election where, when a voter threw the lever, a secure connection with an IRS mainframe were established, and one vote was cast for every dollar of tax the voter paid in the preceding tax year. For voters who received net tax rebates (i.e., disguised welfare), votes would be cast for the opposite candidate. Do you think election campaign strategies would change much?

Let’s take a look at some of President Obama’s former campaign and current slogans, through the lens offered by this admittedly cynical view of our political system:

“Change”—Translation: superficially, no more Bush; more deeply, the rich have too much, the poor too little. I will “Change” that by taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Vote for me.

It is “Our” time—Translation: it is no longer “Their” time. Who are “They”? Why the “rich” of course. It is no longer “Their” time because I am going to take from the “rich” and give to you the poor. Hence it is now “Our” time.

“A New Era of Responsibility”—Translation: I got the spending bill passed, never mind how grossly irresponsible that was, and so now it is time to talk about responsibility, which means soaking the “rich” to make ends meet.

Now let’s take a quick look at our current economic crisis. Few would argue with the proposition that it began with two related contagions: the bursting of the nationwide housing bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis. These two contagions were each caused by ill-advised government intervention in the free markets. The housing bubble was caused by Greenspan’s years of cheap and easy money policies following the dot com bust; the subprime mortgage crisis was caused by government sponsored home ownership programs where anyone with a pulse was deemed “entitled” to own a home. By the close of 2008, the worldwide financial crisis, coupled with crashing stock and home prices, spawned a paralyzing fear, which engulfed the world. Business activity worldwide began to fall off in all sectors at an alarming rate never before witnessed by any of us save those who were born before the Great Depression. We were caught in a self perpetuating and vicious graveyard spiral—negative economic news spawned more fear, and more fear spawned more and worse real negative economic news. Where once I could sell three shares of Citigroup and buy a business suit with the proceeds, now those proceeds pay for one of my daughter’s lattes.

The recently passed $787 billion spending bill presumes to create 3.5 million jobs. Putting aside the fact that we are now dealing with an indivisible $67 trillion annual global economy where less than a trillion dollars is a mere rounding error, even if the spending bill did create the advertised 3.5 million jobs, that comes to a cost of about $450,000 per permanent job, assuming half of the jobs created are temporary infrastructure jobs. If the average job created pays $35,000 per year, it will take 13 years to earn back the costs of creating the jobs without giving any effect to the time value of money. After giving effect to the time value of money, it will take a quantum century to earn back the money the jobs cost us to create. That’s if the 3.5 million jobs are created and assuming many are permanent, both unlikely assumptions.

And how is Obama going to pay for all of this wonderful stimulus? Why by soaking the “rich”—the industrious folks who worked hard to build small businesses and employ others. But what about Hauser’s Law? He’s the San Francisco economist who, in 1993, made a rather remarkable observation. He observed that although federal marginal tax rates ranged from a low of 28% to a high of 91% between 1950 and 2007, the revenues collected by the Treasury always ended up at exactly 19.5% of gross domestic product. Capital migrates away from tax heavy jurisdictions to tax light jurisdictions, and the jobs follow the capital. This seemingly remarkable observation is really just a corollary of my opening premise: reduce the incentive in a free market capitalist system and you lose gross domestic product—the capital, productivity and jobs move to other more tax friendly jurisdictions (or the capital gets pulled out of circulation as risks are averted not taken). That, or parts of the economy go underground altogether when the taxes get too punishing. In all events, raising taxes in the current environment is economic suicide. In short, the spending bill will likely achieve few of the jobs sought to be created, but we will have to pay for all the spending just the same. And the tax raises Obama plans in order to pay for the futile spending will only serve to extend our recession for years and years, as it robs our system of vital incentive and forces the export of capital and jobs to more tax friendly jurisdictions.

To make matters worse still, the futile spending will have an even more dear cost. Although Obama touted him during the campaign as if he were slated to become one of Obama’s cabinet members, the Oracle of Omaha, famed investor Warren Buffet, recently observed in a letter to the Berkshire Hathaway stockholders, that the stimulus bill is likely to cause “an onslaught of inflation.” And that’s when the real misery starts again. Try double digit unemployment rates coupled with 20% mortgage rates. Today will look like a walk in the park.

Fortunately, the folly of Obama’s policies were almost immediately recognized by Wall Street. The stock market has dropped a stunning 30% since Obama’s election, and roughly 20% since his inauguration. It dropped a whopping 332 points the very day of his inauguration. One has to travel back in history more than a century to find a President who has done worse in his first six weeks in office. 

In sum, we now enjoy a greater level of general widespread prosperity than ever before enjoyed by mankind, thanks to free market capitalism. Our banking system collapsed in large measure due to ill advised government interventions in the free market—not ineffective government regulation of the free market—in the form of government sponsored home mortgage programs and an overly aggressive long term cheap and easy money policy implemented by the Federal Reserve Board. These foolhardy government interventions were made possible by a hopelessly corrupted political system where sound ideas and economic theory no longer matter, only magazine sales, popularity with the media and of course pork, earmarks, bribes and influence peddling. Liberal democrats, now led by Obama, blamed a straw man—Bush and failed government regulation—for the severe market disturbances caused not by under-regulation of the free markets but by over intervention in the free markets. Coupled with the one man one vote system the envy of democracies worldwide, it was easy for Mr. Obama to pursue an agenda of “Change” and “Our Time”—promising the bottom half of the taxpayers lower taxes  or money in hand (despite their already infinitesimal 3% share of the national tax burden). The result—a pointless and futile spending bill, adding catastrophically to our deficit and national debt, and not likely to add any meaningful number of sustainable jobs, which can only be created by private business. This pork laden social spending bill, euphemistically called a stimulus package, would be more aptly named the “No Child Left Unharmed Act” as it mortgages our children’s futures. To boot, the tax increases Obama is now seeking to pay for his pointless social spending will rob our economy of the crucial incentives forming the bedrock of our capitalist system so necessary to recovery at this critical point in time. In short, these ill-considered actions will delay recovery for years, mortgage our children’s future, and bring on ferocious and painful inflation. 

President Obama, his head spinning with the unquestioned adulation of his followers, considers himself another Lincoln. Ironically, where Lincoln was the Great Emancipator, history, I believe, will judge Obama the Great Enslaver, as his actions will work to reduce all hard working Americans (and their children)—not just the “rich”— to indentured servants shackled for decades to the repayment of a staggering national debt of Obama’s creation. Mr. Obama would do well to put down Lincoln one night and pick up a copy of John Locke, the great 17^th century English philosopher who declared: “Every man has a title to the product of his honest industry.” Mr. Locke raised this point as part of the crusade against the corrupt feudal lords of his time, but it seems to bear remarkable relevance to the lords of today – corrupt politicians – celebrities who consider it their privilege to take the product of a man’s labors. 

Capitalism offers some great ironies—where people are freely permitted to act in their self interests everyone prospers; when they are stopped from doing so, everyone suffers. Liberal democrats have yet to grasp this simple but undeniable two sided irony; and ironically, their failure to grasp it has spawned yet another irony—businesses and the consumer are not enemies, they are allies. Businesses war with one another in an effort to woo the consumer. They destroy one another to win over the consumer. In so doing they create cheaper, better products—and jobs. Government, in a wrong-headed attempt to reign in a perceived enemy of the people—business—when the perceived enemy is really an ally—has itself become the enemy of the people. Government, the creator of nothing, and grown to behemoth proportions strictly through parasitism—has become a scarecrow to businesses. Businesses are shutting down or leaving the country due to the enormously hostile, over-regulated, over-taxed and over-unionized business environment present in America. And the leaders of that government—our elected officials—have thus replaced the tithe-collecting barons of feudal times as our oppressors.

The good news, if there is any, is that we always have the political pendulum. Once Obama’s ill advised policies are seen for the failures they are doomed to become—a process which seems to be unfolding right now—there will be nowhere for him or the liberal democrats to run and hide. President Reagan’s admonition “government is not the solution to our problem—government is the problem” will once again reign supreme.  And then, our capital gain tax rates, business tax rates, and income tax rates will be lowered and we will able to rebuild our great Nation by honest hard work. So while the path to hell may be paved with good intentions, the route to heaven, ironically, as Ayn Rand observed, follows the selfish acts of individuals which, under capitalism, result in a greater collective good.

Stephen B. Meister