06 Mar 98: Veteran shuttle pilot, Eileen Collins, became the first woman to command a space shuttle mission. This will be her third shuttle mission. NASA is to be commended in her promotion - not because they chose a woman. Such considerations should be irrelevant, but because they chose an experienced and capable officer - "the best man for the job". To forge ahead in the realm of space exploration or any other field of endeavor Americans must practice meritocracy - always picking the best and the brightest without reference to race, creed, color, gender or some abstract quota imposed by a grasping few.
In a related story - NASA's lunar prospector has found evidence of water on the moon. Scientists say that the water could be used to help sustain a colony on Earth's largest natural satellite. The water is frozen and mixed into the soil, but could be easily extracted and even converted into fuel. The moon could act as a refueling station on the road to further space exploration. Already some environmental extremists are decrying the idea of using the moon's natural resources. Underground sources are quoted as saying, "Hey dude, they better not be chopping down any old growth ice crystals; it might upset the balance, man."
05 Mar 98: The US House of Representatives, last night, voted to hold a special referendum in Puerto Rico this year to determine if the commonwealth will become the 51st state. The referendum would give Puerto Ricans the choices of continued commonwealth status, independence or statehood. Before the referendum can take place, the same bill must be passed in the Senate. President Clinton noted that it "does not impose onerous, unworkable, unprecedented or unconstitutional language requirements." He referred to an amendment by opponents that would have made English the official language. The question of acceptance of Puerto Rico as a state runs far deeper than arguments over culture and language. The problem begins with the added costs that acceptance of Puerto Rico would bring to the US treasury because of increased welfare benefits to the poor in the commonwealth (in excess of revenues received by the imposition of a federal income tax). It would end with the corruption that this US influence would inevitably create within Puerto Rico. Welfare has already created a huge underclass in this country, why should we expand the misery to other parts of the globe merely to satisfy some Washington politician's desire for hegemony?
The Senate is driving a huge transportation bill through Congress. Included on this bill is an amendment that would create a nation-wide requirement that states conform to a strict definition of drunk driving (.08 blood-alcohol level) or possibly lose federal highway funding. The imposition of a stricter law regarding drunken driving may be a salutary measure, but is it the purview of the Federal government to impose their will upon the states in this matter? Police powers were reserved to the states in the US Constitution. Typically Congress has gotten around this in the past by withholding federal funds from recalcitrant states. This is how the federal government imposed the 55 mph speed limit. One of the great advantages of the federal system has been its flexibility in leaving national matters to the federal government and local matters to the states, counties and municipalities. Local control prevents an ossified and overbearing national government from imposing laws that simply do not make sense, and allows locals to do what is right for their constituencies. Thus the new drunk driving law would be a bad precedent in a good cause.
04 Mar 98: Bill Gates founder of Microsoft was brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee is investigating whether Microsoft is a monopoly and whether it is engaging in unfair business practices. Gates gave a spirited defense of Microsoft and the company's contribution to the economy. However, Senators, including Orin Hatch - R of Utah - seemed adamant in depicting Mr. Gates as a monopolist. Microsoft is, indeed, a huge corporation that does dominate the operating system market and is closing in on the browser market. This does not make Microsoft bad or evil. Rather to get where they have gotten, they must have been pretty good at something. Besides providing compatible and stable platforms across the computer industry so that other software developers are not required to modify programs for an infinite number of operating systems, they provide high-quality and inexpensive software that has made America more productive. This productivity has helped to fuel a long period of sustained economic growth. The detractors of Bill Gates and Microsoft would kill the goose that laid the golden egg by either breaking up Microsoft or by imposing restrictions on its activities. Far better to let the system work. The free market will determine when Microsoft has gotten too big and is no longer good for America.
Vernon Jordan testified before the Whitewater grand jury yesterday. When he emerged from the court house, in reference to questions about whether his testimony would affect his friendship with Bill Clinton, "Let me reassure you that ours is an enduring friendship based on mutual respect, trust and admiration. That was true yesterday. That is true today. That will be true tomorrow." Does this comment indicate that he would be willing to say or do anything before the grand jury that he wouldn't for someone he did not know? When a man is asked for the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a grand jury, friendship with the most powerful man in America should not mean anything.
03 Mar 98: Republicans in Congress have come up with a plan called the Tax Code Termination Act. It is designed to wipe out the current tax code by 31 December 2001 thus forcing Congress to act on a new tax code before that date. Various proposals include a flat tax, a national sales tax and some other tax structures. Most economists and politicians agree that the present code is not only complex, but acts as a disincentive to economic advancement. Congressmen understand that the political will to act to change the tax code without endless hand-wringing does not exist without some mechanism that creates a deadline. The President has called the Termination Act irresponsible. It is far from that, forcing Congress to overhaul the tax code is the only responsible thing to do.
Democrats and liberals are trying to make the case that Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation is creating so much fear in the White House that aides refuse to take notes or to discuss certain matters. Perhaps a bit of fear is actually good for the White House. Perhaps then they might be a little more reticent to acquire the FBI files of private citizens for political purposes. They may be more careful about possibly influencing casino gambling permits for Indian tribes in exchange for donations to their campaign coffers. They may be more careful about making policy decisions against US interests possibly in exchange for money received indirectly from the Communist Chinese Government. Perhaps White House employees should not be engaged in conversations that would land them before a grand jury anyway.
02 Mar 98: The US Military was accused yesterday by the British-American Security Information Council of having an "irrational and vindictive streak" in its handling of nuclear weapons. A Pentagon policy study called "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence" was acquired by the liberal think tank through the Freedom of Information Act. It does, indeed, spell out an American strategy of using the threat of nuclear weapons to keep such bullies as Saddam Hussein and Khadafi from using terror or military force against the US. Why should anyone be surprised that the US would consider such options? Military planners would be derelict in their duties if they did not posit such possibilities. History has shown that nations are bullied and harassed when they are weak (witness Europe just prior to WW II) and when they stand up against aggressors they have lived in peace (witness the cold war that ended in the expenditures of dollars and not lives). The old Strategic Air Command had a motto that spoke volumes: "Peace through strength."
The debate over Social Security is heating up, with Democrats and liberals advocating only more money for a system designed to fail. Projections show that most people will get little more than what they put in and some demographic groups will actually receive less. In comparison to rates of return on stocks, bonds or even good old US savings bonds, Social Security as a retirement plan is poor. The fact is, most of the money collected through FICA is now funneled into the federal treasury to shore up the deficit and billions of those dollars go to pay interest on the debt - it is NOT being invested in the future of the contributor. There are solutions to the Social Security problems. Most of them involve using Social Security as an investment vehicle rather than as a transfer program. Over the next few years this issue will come to the forefront of American Politics. Look for it to peak around the 2000 campaign.
