Energy Policy

Dan is on hiatus this week and gives the floor to Justin.
(He will be back to discuss health care.)

Just when I thought Democrats were going to show some capacity for leadership, for economic prosperity, for new direction, for peace, etc; they go ahead and drop the nuclear weapon of economic destruction – tax increases. Oh, they buried it deep and they covered it good. See, they call it the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, and it never, ever, ever calls directly for a tax increase. It does extend the period of deduction for some expenses; it forces oil companies to renegotiate leases that have been on the books since 1998 and 1999 at higher rates; and it eliminates tax deductions for oil companies that are extended to all manufacturing companies.

As the US Chamber of Commerce states in their letter of opposition to this atrocious act of economic violence, “this act will further impede domestic oil and gas production.” When Congress gets involved in the economy by increasing the costs to companies and denying tax deductions it has two major impacts. First and foremost, the companies just pass the cost on to the people who buy the products – us! We will pay for the increased cost of oil and gas extraction and exploration with higher prices at the pump. Second, it creates an uneven economic playing field for US companies in the oil and gas marketplace. This serves to drive production overseas and away from the United States. We will depend more on foreign sources thanks to this poor legislation. And you global warming, earth loving types out there should be alarmed anytime we push oil production overseas – you think third world countries have the same anti-spill and drilling site cleanliness standards that the US does?

I am appalled at another confirmation that the Democrats either fail to understand the economy or they are turning deaf ears to the outcry of the American people for relief from high prices at the gas pump. They should start by trying to cut taxes on oil companies and encourage exploration and development of domestic sources. If we want to encourage long-term development of alternative sources for energy then so be it, but ill-conceived and poorly constructed legislation will provide neither short-term relief nor long-term solutions.

Let us begin our energy reform by realizing two key things.

One, the alternative fuel sources touted both by the left and by the President are still theoretical, not cost effective and closer to science fiction than solid policy. In his comments on ethanol production, the President might as well have called for 1 zillion barrels of ethanol, while placing his pinky next to his lips with a smirk, because ethanol experts reacted just like the table of world leaders in Austin Powers, “There isn’t 1 zillion barrels of ethanol in the whole world!” We can not grow enough corn to make enough ethanol to make a difference in our energy needs, at least not with current technology. It will take breakthroughs in the future and taxing our limited resources of today only squeezes consumers; it does not, as liberals erroneously believe, create vast pools of tax revenue from the bloated profits of oil companies with no economic consequences.

Two, if the United States wants a practical, cost-effective and tested method of generating more energy without burning fossil fuels, we should take a page from the Europeans and the Japanese. They have learned that strategic development of nuclear power can be clean, quiet and efficient. We are still plagued by the ghosts of our history where reactionary opinions against a fledgling technology and mass protests have seemingly left an indelible, negative impression. We must overcome this foolish prejudice and embrace the progressive and creative ideas of new technology.

SOTU Review

After watching the State of the Union, Bush seems even weaker than I thought, and that’s pretty weak. I haven’t seen any polling data, but this could be the first time since they have been polling that a President’s approval rating could go down after a SOTU address. Specifically, I have a few problems with the speech. We’ll start with the superficial and work toward the substantial. This president is a terrible public speaker. His rhythm is awful, he stumbles over words and completely lacks the ability to inspire through oratory. There are some that say there are many important qualities to leading the nation that do not include public speaking. I agree, but I think that out of 300 million people, we can find a few that have the intellectual capabilities to be president and the ability to speak well to a nation. Substantially, the President invoked the 9/11 attacks consistently throughout the address. In other words, FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR. Remember how those 19 men from Iraq…err… Afghanistan…err… I mean Saudi Arabia attacked us 5 years ago? Remember how much you liked me back then? Remember the confidence you had in me then? Please forget the past 4 years of failed policy in Iraq – the turning of corners, the nonexistent WMDs, the last throes of the insurgency, the trillion dollars spent, staying the course, the 3,000+ dead Americans and the seemingly endless war. The President has so little credibility that he had to quote terrorists in order to try to convince Americans to trust him. He can no longer use his own words to strike fear in everyone; now he is reduced to using the words of the very men who are trying to kill us. When bin Laden has more credibility than you, you know you are in trouble. Why should we believe that the terrorists will fight us here if they don’t fight us in Iraq? Why, after all the other lies this administration has told (yellow cake anyone?) should we now trust you? Domestically, the President gave a convoluted and incoherently-written proposal about health care. Rather than go into my thoughts on health care here, wait a few weeks and we will have a fuller debate about it. As for the energy section, we’ll tackle that next week. In short, we need a comprehensive energy policy that focuses on higher fuel-efficiency standards, increased public transportation and reduced consumption. No Child Left Behind is reviled by teachers across the nation, including friends of mine who are conservative republicans. The last thing we need is to let that atrocity of a bill sail through Congress without severe rewriting and rethinking. Education can be the great equalizer, the silver bullet that can pull kids out of poverty, drugs and a cycle of violence. A real commitment to education could propel American to even greater heights – in the 60’s, a true commitment to math and science brought man to the moon. The possibilities are endless, if only this administration would live up to its commitment of being the education administration. All in all, I give the address a D+. I did like honoring the subway hero from New York. That was definitely the highlight. Policy-wise, not impressive in the least.

First, let me pause and appreciate the fact that one of my New Year’s resolutions has come true. For personal confirmation of this, see the “Oh, really!” segment of SNL from last weekend regarding Michael Vick.” Despite the fact that some of the President’s most vigorous applause came during his pandering to the futile ideal of bipartisanship; I am not a believer. I am convinced that the next 12 to 24 months in Congress will be one long campaign for President, interspersed with bickering along traditional party lines. It is clear, from the covert activities over the last few months, culminating in announcements about Presidential exploratory committees, to the responses to Bush’s State of The Union that many of the most important and influential members of Congress and the Senate have their minds elsewhere, namely on the President’s job. So, what does that mean for the State of the Union…well, the President seems to believe that – the War on Terror is good, the troops in Iraq are good, Congress’ failure to support Bush’s strategy in Iraq is bad, balanced budgets are good, health insurance for poor people is good, global warming is bad, education for our children is good, world peace is good…etc. Practically speaking, the State of the Union means that Bush is going to bog down every subcommittee on Capitol Hill with legislation over the next several months. Ambiguous and controversial proposals are great time wasters in a city divided. The pundits are discussing Bush’s new education reforms and changes to “No Child Left Behind.” What a dumb name, there are kids left behind everywhere. I was left behind every time we played sports, no skills. I have friends that will always be left behind economically, no desire. Bush wants mandatory test scores in science and school choice via vouchers. Democrats will offer counter proposals, Republicans will offer counter-counter proposals. Bureaucrats will rejoice – there is red tape and legal documents to go around aplenty for years to come. Advocacy groups will demand hearings, and the other side will demand counter hearings. They will debate funding levels, implementation strategies, impacts to educational systems, minority issues, gender issues, sexual orientation issues, how to keep the system accountable, can we keep the system accountable, who is going to have oversight, blah, blah, blah… Then it will be February 2008 and oops, we are out of time. Must run for President. And then the Democrats will serve with, “the GOP fought us on education reform,” volleyed back by the Republicans, “the democrats were not serious about educational choice,” returned with, “the GOP never made meaningful, practical proposals,” countered with, “the Democrats were not serious about bipartisanship,” and so on. It will be flavors of the same on every topic. Neither party can let the other party have a victory/feather in their cap going into 2008. The Democrats can not let the President advance his health insurance proposals, because they want to be the saviors for the uninsured. The Republicans can not let the President move forward on his immigration strategy because they want to mandate who can and can not come into this land of the free. Everybody wants to say Iraq=bad, but soldiers=good except the President. Any major reform will be countered and watered down so badly that I can not see it having true impact. Consequently, the State of the Union was for me, an announcement that no major reform will be accomplished over the next 2 years as both parties wait with bated breath for a new national leader.

Democrat in the White House

It seems like the ‘06 elections have barely ended, but about 83 different people have announced they are running for President, including Tom “Blow up Mecca” Tancredo, Dennis “Little Person” Kucinich and Barack “Rising Star” Obama. So here at GMTD, I have decided to throw my considerable political weight behind the same person I voted for in the 2004 primaries: John Edwards. Why John Edwards? In addition to his boyish good looks, Edwards is the only major candidate that continues to talk about domestic poverty and economic inequality. His stump speech in 2004 dealt with the "two Americas" – the one America that is for the rich and privileged and the other America, for everyone else. Rich kids went to better schools, which offered classes in Latin and gymnastics. Poor kids went to schools that were falling apart and used textbooks that had Richard Nixon as President. Millions of children are born into poverty every year in this country, many unsure where their next meal is coming from. And one politician had the guts to speak about such debilitating poverty in the richest country in the world. And, not only does he continue to talk about it, he is putting his money where his mouth is. He directed UNC’s Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity after his failed VP run in 2004. He crisscrossed the country over the past year to encourage states to increase the minimum wage, after the Republican Congress refused to do so. Even now, he is encouraging supporters to hold canned food drives and conserve energy. More than a politician, Edwards actually cares about the issues. And he is a realist. He knows that we can’t have everything all at once. In order to keep the deficit in check, he is proposing to eliminate Bush’s tax cuts for the top 2 percent of earners – those making about $200,000 per year. Unlike the Republicans who have controlled Washington for the past 6 years, Edwards is pledged to fiscal responsibility. As for his relative inexperience in international affairs, Edwards was one of the first Democrats to come out against the Iraq war, after being deceived (like the rest of us) by this administration’s cherry-picking of intelligence. While in the Senate, Edwards authored legislation on biosecurity and port security, topics this administration and the Republican Congress had largely ignored. Over the coming months, I will make passing references to why Edwards should be elected. He brings the knowledge of D.C., but not the taint of an insider. He is willing to talk about topics that aren’t sexy because he knows they are important. And he has an intelligence and depth that is sadly lacking in the current president. He is a fresh face, bringing important topics into the public forum for discussion. I will be volunteering for him, working to ensure that we close the economic gap between rich and poor in this country, ensuring that everyone has a shot at the American Dream. I urge you to do the same.

Presidentially speaking I would like a libertarian Republican; failing that, I would like a conservative Republican; failing that I would like a conservative Democrat; failing that I would like a libertarian Democrat; failing that, I would have the current field of contenders. I would think that the Democrat base should be excited and energized by the current stable of candidates for the Presidency because most if not all of the serious candidates have historically been true liberals. If I was to pick one I would pick Dennis Kucinich, but that is because he would lose, and since Dan asked that I seriously consider which of the Democrats I would prefer assuming that it is unavoidable that one will be elected, I should give a more serious option. So, let us take a quick glance at the two front runners – Senators Obama and Clinton. Senator Obama strikes me, in the little that I have read and heard about thus far in the campaign, as a true believer. My perception of Senator Obama is that he is truly devoted to the agenda that he has laid out and that he will pursue his beliefs without compromise. This type of impenetrable liberalism is a terrible direction for our nation. The excesses of liberalism are on full display in Western Europe where socialized welfare and medicine, along with strong economic disincentives like taxes and required vacation, have crippled their economies, making them almost irrelevant in the global economy. I fear that Senator Obama would not offer us fair and just leadership. His history with corrupt individuals offers me no hope that he would be able to resist temptation when given Presidential power. On the other hand, I never thought I would prefer Hilary Clinton over anyone for President, but here I am suggesting she may be the best of the worst. The Clintons are consistent - consistently worried about two things: power and legacy. Bill obsessed over his legacy as his Presidency wound down, and he pressed for international agreements that he could claim as part of his accomplishments. Hilary, I am confident, would do the same. She has already demonstrated a remarkable ability to hide her personal feelings, beliefs and convictions (if she has any) when it is not politically expedient. Regardless of her stated policy objectives, I could easily see her administering over a Presidency that does not radically move us towards socializing every institution of American policy while preserving a relatively low tax regime. This would be the result of an aggressive conservative movement, energized by the fear of what a Democrat in the White House could accomplish, taking strong action to reverse trends in Congress and unify the Republican party, if only temporarily. Success breeds complacency, but fear breeds action. President Hilary would inspire great fear in the Republican base and she would probably not pose as great a threat as some of the other frontrunners who are true ideologues. I, by no means, want to sound as if I doubt Senator Clinton’s commitment or resolve around her key issues, however, when asked to measure the Democrats, I find her candidacy to be more tolerable than some of the others whom I consider stronger threats to the values that I believe make America great.

(P)reaction and (P)response

Rather than wait and post a reaction to Bush’s much-touted and oft-delayed public address on Iraq, we decided to throw our opinions out there before the speech. Why, you might ask? Because so much of what goes on in this town is political theater. Everyone knows that Bush is going to call for a troop surge in Iraq. We all know that he will vaguely speak about finishing the job, about fighting the insurgency, and about making Iraq a stable democracy. There are leaks to all the major news outlets already, undoubtedly official leaks, telling all the details of the address. So, why not go ahead and preact? A troop surge is a bad idea. It is a bad idea because this administration has failed repeatedly to have any sort of military success in post-war Iraq. Last summer, the President launched “Operation Together Forward” in Baghdad, adding some 10,000 soldiers to suppress violence in the Iraqi capital. Violence increased. Lots of people died, including hundreds of Americans. A troop surge is like finding a stockbroker who has lost millions upon millions in the past few years because of bad investments and saying, “Here, take my life savings and invest it for me.” Only an idiot would think this is a good idea. Yet, for some reason, this administration is blundering ahead with another 20,000 troops. Why should the American people have any faith that this administration has the slightest clue how to handle Iraq? If I came into work every day and mangled every project I worked on for 48 months, I can’t imagine that my boss would pile more work on me. Incompetence ought to be dealt with by reducing responsibility (or getting fired). Unfortunately, the American people did not punish Bush after a failed first term, but rather gave him a “mandate” to continue to do what he is doing. Mr. President, you are a failure. Your policies have failed – miserably – in Iraq. From finding WMDs to “turning a corner” to “staying the course”, all of your initiatives have lead to death, destruction, international ill-will and billions of tax dollars wasted. The best thing you could do for the country is admit that you are incompetent, then try to do the least damage possible until we can finally vomit you out of the White House and begin the healing process with someone who knows what the hell they are doing.

In presponse to Bush’s comments tonight I am encouraged that at the very least, we are embracing change. I have been consistently amazed with the proclivity of the Bush administration to pursue a strong policy of stagnation in Iraq. Regardless of the attitude of the public, the news from Iraq or the reaction of the media, the Bush team has been resilient in their policy. They declare victory, demand patience and perseverance and change nothing. It is a sound political formula in Washington DC, but not on the streets of Baghdad. As I prespond to Bush’s inevitable comments this evening, I am convinced that the turnover in the House and Senate is an opportunity for the conservative movement and the GOP. Finally, Bush is looking for, finding and implementing new ideas. What the military (and most of us) have known for a long time, that you can not defeat radical Islamic militants who embrace suicide attacks with just enough troops to occupy and rebuild a country. I am excited to see that the President is preparing us for a different and stronger approach to the war in Iraq, but I will be amazed if he can build the consensus needed to implement and complete any such troop buildup over many months. He needs agreement not only from his own party, which is hardly a given anymore, and the opposition as well. DC will absorb this new policy agenda with the same slow, lethargic ingestion it has offered for every major policy issue over the last several years. We are bogged down in a war that must be won or at least ended in Iraq. Until that happens, it will take some incredible leadership to provide policy direction that does not require people to start every speech with an “I” and finish every speech with a “q;” with everything in the middle being “ra…ra…ra.” America’s leadership seems paralyzed by this Iraq issue, and yet, the issues that create energy here in the US are everything but Iraq. Minimum wage and illegal immigration are probably the two most interesting and exciting topics to the American public, but we are forced by politicos who are afraid to rock the boat to only discuss and think about Iraq. I am thoroughly behind a new strategy in Iraq, and troop buildup sounds great to me. Either we beat down the insurgents enough to let the Iraqis handle their own problems, or we lose so many troops that we call it quits and let the Iraqis handle their own problems. Meanwhile, the US political leadership are obsessed with the Iraq topic. Speech and response, act and react. It is one big production in DC. This is what is so amazing about DC. Dan and I can write relatively accurate preactions to the speech tonight because everything is choreographed and prepared. Even the media plays their roles perfectly. They tell us what the President is going to say, break it down, and then wrap it up. The President might as well not even show up to say anything. And for that matter neither party needs to react to the speech either, we can let America’s commentators handle. They can say things like, “Well, if the President had given the speech, he would have said, “X;” and then if the opposition had responded, they would have said “not X.”” Therefore, all that is left is for Dan and me to preact about the speech that we will hear tonight. That way, we really are on the cutting edge, and maybe we will beat everyone else to the punch with our witty and in-depth analysis of a speech we have not heard.

Charity and Government

Charity – people with means donating money and/or time to help others – is a lot more complicated than simply writing a check at the end of the year to your favorite organization. The ethics behind why people give is a question that has been debated by great thinkers for thousands of years. This is a huge topic that we could spend the next year discussing and debating. But for today, I want to focus on the role of charities in relation to the role of government. A separate post is needed to delve into international assistance issues, so this post will focus on domestic charities only. Government is here to help people. Government helps people by providing safety through police, firefighters, a military, roads and a system of law and order. Governments also help people who fall on hard times through temporary programs such as food stamps, WIC and TANF. And collectively, we as a society through our government, help those who cannot help themselves through programs such as free lunch for school children and disability assistance for those who cannot work. However, in such a large society stretching from sea to sea, there are some people who fall through the cracks. Regulations sometimes prevent certain people from qualifying for some assistance programs despite a real need for food or housing assistance. Despite the best efforts of local, state and national governments, some families are unable to feed their children or are forced to choose between medicine and paying for heat in the winter. In these situations, charities step in and help those in need. Charities step in to support people who slip through the holes in government safety nets. Sometimes charities step up before the slow wheels of governments are able to begin programs. Soup kitchens and food pantries were set up during the Great Depression, and then FDR started the New Deal to help people find employment. The food stamp program was set up in the 1930s and then again in the 1960s to help those who could not afford to feed their families. And despite this and other programs, hunger still lingered in America. Which is where charity comes in. Charities help those who are still in need of assistance or do not qualify for government assistance. Our ultimate goal, shared by both authors of this blog, is for charities and government assistance programs to become obsolete because everyone has all that they need for a fulfilling life. But until that day, government is responsible for its citizens well-being. There is an implicit social contract signed when citizens pay their taxes and follow the laws of the land. And where imperfect governments are inadequate, charities will continue the good work of filling in the gaps while like-minded citizens work for a better government for all people. As this holiday season is upon us, I urge you to find a charity that you believe in, that you believe makes this country and this world a better place. And I encourage you to give your time, money and support to them, so that we can all work together for the betterment of everyone.

Our government is the most powerful charitable organization in the world on two counts. First, it has the unique power to tax and give. No other charity can coerce giving into its coffers; additionally, the government has absolute control over how and where the distributions occur. Second, the government motivates the majority of voluntary giving by offering tax deductions as a reward for contributions to non-profit causes. In a nation of “choice,” we are forced to give money to the tax man who donates our hard earned dollars to whatever causes are approved by bureaucratic subcommittees that are staffed by Beltway highbrows, Ivy League intellectuals, trust fund babies and other do-gooders who are totally disconnected from the real world. I thoroughly support the way that tax deductions motivate giving to non-governmental charities. Choice in giving creates a competitive environment, wherein charities must demonstrate practical value, socially constructive output, or, at a minimum, valuable ideas. The government’s form of giving is cumbersome, complicated, can not be influenced in explicit ways, and is protected by layers of incumbency and bureaucracy. I suggest that we maximize the motivation and the output of private, competitive giving and minimize the taxation that translates into charity. As individuals, I believe we are more than physical particles, and that our formless souls are created to experience positive consequences when we engage in selfless action. That is why we appreciate heroes, why we value sacrifice, why we feel good about saving the kitten from the tree. It is why we love and trust firefighters and soldiers and sometimes police officers. I am quite certain it is also why we enjoy giving. John Stossel’s latest report indicates that there is some psychic and even physical reward for giving, and I am persuaded to believe it. If it is the thought that counts, then oftentimes, giving in December should not count, because we may be after a quick tax deduction, but try telling that to the directors and presidents of those charities that depend on the gifts to continue their work! Besides, people truly do like giving, even if it as simple as non-deductible pocket change for the bell ringers outside the grocery store. We appreciate that in our season of family and religion, there are others that are not enjoying the season as much as we are. I hate the phrase “giving back,” because what I have was earned either by myself or my family before me, but I love the word “giving,” because in that word exists all the power and reward associated with sacrificing our time and money for someone else’s enjoyment. And that is what makes this such a Wonderful Life whether your Christmas Story is a Christmas Vacation, a White Christmas, or just a Miracle on 34th Street.

The Alternative Minumum Tax

AMT is Fine with Me The alternative minimum tax, created in the 1970’s, is a good idea at heart. With a bit of tweaking, it’s a fair way to make sure that those who make the most money pay their fair share of taxes. The AMT was created because there were loopholes in the tax code you could shove a whale through. The intent was to make sure that the top one percent or so of Americans could not hide their earnings and avoid their civic duty of paying taxes. It sets up a minimum amount, around 27 percent, that the richest of the rich had to pay even if they do their best to get out of it. Since the AMT was created, however, it has not been adjusted for inflation meaning that it is beginning to hit households that make around $100,000. And in the next few years, more and more households, some only making $75,000 per year will be hit with the ATM. Now, I firmly believe that taxes are a necessary part of any government. We, as citizens, expect a certain level of protection and services from the government – whether it is a military to protect from foreign invaders or a system of roads and highways to connect 3,000 miles of land from sea to shining sea. And those services cost money. And everyone has to pay their share. And in a progressive society, the poor pay very little, if any taxes and the rich have to pay a slightly higher percentage than the middle class. Some might say that to whom much is given, much is expected. I take a bit more practical approach. If our armed forces are protecting six of your houses and the navy is protecting 3 of your boats, it is reasonable that you have to bear a little bit more of the cost. The AMT was created because some of the uber-rich were trying to get out of paying their share. And while $100,000 is a good chunk of change, the AMT was not designed to affect the upper-middle class. So let’s get back to the point of the AMT. Let’s tweak the law so that the top percent or half a percent has an alternative minimum tax. And let the rest of Americans pay our fair share as well.

Get Rid of the AMT The Alternative Minimum Tax was designed to keep super rich folks from skipping out on their tax burden. It creates a whole new tax regime that must be calculated separately from the typical income tax. Thanks to Congressional forgetfulness the income brackets that are affected by this tax have not been raised appropriately over time, and by 2010 projections suggest that over 30 million households will be affected. Unless America is more prosperous than even I think it is, we do not have 30 million super rich households in the US. In fact, the income bracket hurt most by this tax is between $100.000 and $500,000. Granted, these are substantial incomes, but remember, this tax was designed to hit the rich folks from sneaking deductions in and not paying taxes. Instead, the tax is hammering households that have either two working parents who have good jobs or upper middle class families. Simply put, the AMT must be calculated separately from the income tax, if the AMT is higher, than you have to pay that number. The highest income tax bracket in the US is 35 percent, while the highest AMT bracket is 28 percent. Thus, people with extremely high incomes will end up paying more in regular income tax because most of their income falls into the 35 percent category. This means they miss out on the joy of paying the AMT. The AMT is also notoriously complex, it disallows many deductions and income exemptions that the income tax allows. For instance, interest on nongovernmental purpose bonds issued after August 7th, 1986 that is excludible from gross income for regular tax purposes must be included for the AMT, companies must disallow deductions from amortizations of pollution control facilities, and individuals impacted by the AMT lose their deduction for having a hybrid automobile, Everyone agrees that the AMT must be reformed, but the question is how. My question is why. Why bother? Get rid of the thing. It is cumbersome, expensive to administer, and does not even affect its target tax market. The nation spends billions to properly file their income tax returns, and there is no reason to add another burden to our citizens. If you disagree with me, then try a simple experiment…get married, have 2.3 kids, work hard, make a lot of money (this is key – broke people do not have to worry much with taxes), love your spouse, try to spend time with your kids so they turn out okay, and then try to do your taxes (AMT or otherwise) yourself. This is what the bulk of productive households in the US face every year and then bureaucrats and think-tank do-gooders who can not relate tell them that taxes are not really burdensome to file. Get real, and get rid of the AMT!

Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas?

Evangelical Sell-outs If you go into a Wal-Mart this holiday season, you will be greeted with a barrage of "Merry Christmas" signs, banners and other advertisements. You see, somehow it is better in the minds of religious conservatives to use the name of their Lord and Savior to sell $10 T-shirts made by children in poorly-ventilated developing countries than the generic “Happy Holidays.” I truly believe that when Jesus was upon the cross, being tortured and spat upon, he was thinking to himself that it sure would be great if his birthday could be used one day to sell a DVD player. The question shouldn’t be if we are commercializing Christmas, but if evangelicals are commercializing Christ. Christmas is a celebration of the birth of a savior, yet evangelicals are fighting tooth and nail to have “Merry Christmas” plastered above every Extreme Tickle-Me-Elmo and totally awesome new Staind CD. Why in the hell are Christians, who claim to be so passionately devoted to the life and teachings of one man, willing to see his name used to sell everything under the sun? If I were a church-going evangelical, I would be up in arms that Wal-Mart has the audacity to use the most holy name in my religious tradition to make money! Seriously, does anyone believe that this was a moral decision by Wal-Mart or any other mega-retailer? Surely there was some accountant team that crunched the numbers – the amount of free press they would receive, the amount of praise they would receive on Christian radio and TV stations. And someone somewhere said that they would make more money by using the phrase “Merry Christmas” than the phrase “Happy Holidays.” That’s the whole reason for the season for retailers – mammon. And if they can get more of it by exploiting the religious convictions of some people, then why not? Especially if they will be supported by the very people that they are exploiting. For Christians, the name of Christ should be revered and hallowed. Jesus should be spoken about with reverence and humility. And his birth should not be used to line the pockets of CEOs and huge corporations. Religion ought to be intensely personal, to be shared by a person and his or her diety. And I believe firmly that everyone has a right to believe or not believe what they want. So congratulations to all the shrilling evangelicals who pressured retailers to use the phrase “Merry Christmas.” You have succeeded in the further commercialization of Jesus. Season’s greeting and happy holidays to you!

Happy Market-based Greeting The season has come – I mean winter of course – and with it the modern American debate of what exactly goes on during December and early January. Based on the suggestion of American liberals, we are in the midst of the “Holiday Season.” After all, when Wal-mart and many other major retailers returned to the “Merry Christmas” greeting this year, my liberal friends, such as Dan, expressed disappointment that they were caving to the ethno-religio-culturocentric right-wingers who threatened boycotts over the Happy Holidays trend. I, for one, do not care how you greet me when I walk through the door. But what makes me a little upset, is the lack of consistency from the liberals. It amazes me to hear them clamor for freedom of speech for pornographers and terrorists, but when it comes to religious greetings, then everything is offensive. I am convinced that if you own the place, you can have your employees greet people however you want. If you want your employees to say, “Bah-humbug,” or yell “Not another one,” when a paying customer gets in line to checkout, I think that is fine – it is after all, your pocketbook. So, when I, the generally Republican, extremely WASPy, and apparently, according to Dan, anti-choice, hate mongering, speech limiting conservative/libertarian walks through the door into your fair trade, environmentally conscious, Greenpeace loving, anti-Bush, hemp curtain hanging, liberal gift shop this December, you greet me however you want – say “Happy Holidays,” “Happy Hanukkah,” “Happy New Year,” “Happy Kwanzaa,” “Happy Winter Solstice,” or make up your own holiday to celebrate, but please, do not limit the choice of other companies who find “Merry Christmas” to be the best greeting for their stores. And if you choose not to shop at those places, fine, but quit making silly claims about how offensive it is to say “Merry Christmas” to a Jew or an African-American. Clearly, those of us who celebrate this season for the Christmas part of it are not going to, and according to most liberals are not allowed to, be offended when someone greets us with Hanukkah or Kwanzaa. If liberals really want to be culturally sensitive, start campaigns to help Americans learn about other cultural holidays, like Diwali, which is one of the most exciting celebrations in India that just passed us in October. Diwali, the “Festival of Lights,” is greatly anticipated both for its fireworks and deep cultural heritage. Do something constructive rather than expend your energy whining about how offensive it is to hear a religious reference while you are busy shopping to give Christmas presents or Hanukkah presents to your family and friends. No one buys Holiday presents anyway! Finally, if there is one greeting that would inspire me to patronize your shop and pay a premium for your goods, it would be to hear in unison from all your employees, “Happy Festivus, it’s a Festivus for the Rest of Us!”