Senators Enzi, Wyoming, and Alexander, Tennessee, are currently putting together a bill which would force Amazon and other online retailers to start collecting sales tax even when making sales to customers in other states.  Nevermind that the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that retailers can not be forced to collect sales tax on orders from out of state, unless they have offices in the state where the customer resides.  Surely, Senators Enzi and Alexander would be the heroes of state governments everywhere as this sizeable additional revenue stream would help foot the bill for their previous overspending.

Wal-Mart and other traditional retailers have to collect sales tax so it would only be fair if the online retailers did it also, right?  What would it mean for an online retailer like Overstock.com if this bill became the “law of the land”?  There are well over 7,000 taxing authorities across the country and they all have their own rules and regulations.  I speculate that suddenly having to become compliant with  all the rules and the recording keeping and possibly with payments in “arrears”, this will force a lot of online retailers out of business.

Now I’m just a simple peasant and all but if Congress forces Amazon and other Internet retailers to collect sales tax, does that mean the retailers will lower their prices so when sales taxes is added to the price I still get a good deal?  Or will the price remain the same with sales tax added on, in effect, another tax to be paid by the consumers?

This legislation is being brought to you by Republican Senators Enzi and Lamar and it is backed by Wal-Mart , Best Buy, Home Depot and other retailers.  Now again, I’m just a simple peasant l so I should probably leave politics to the aristocracy in Washington DC, but don’t Republicans usually run around saying that new taxes and regulations would hurt the economy? I guess unless a “campaign contribution” of the right size comes their way?

My thoughts were inspired by Declan McCullagh’s article over at C-net news, please give it a read.

Tom The Amateur Thinker

This was a statement uttered by vice president candidate Sarah Palin during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign.  Palin was suggesting that additional oil drilling be authorized to satisfy America’s demand for oil.  Recently, the statement has become a statement of ridicule because of the oil platform disaster off the coast of Louisiana.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s website, The United States imported 57 percent of the oil that we consumed in 2008.  The top fifteen sources of import crude oil in February of this year were, in order:

1. CANADA                      1,897,000 barrels per day
2. MEXICO                           996,000 barrels per day
3. VENEZUELA                  913,000 barrels per day
4. NIGERIA                          896,000 barrels per day
5. SAUDI ARABIA             881,000 barrels per day
6. IRAQ                                  540,000 barrels per day
7. COLOMBIA                      371,000 barrels per day
8. ANGOLA                           312,000 barrels per day
9. ALGERIA                          282,000 barrels per day
10. UNITED KINGDOM     260,000 barrels per day
11. KUWAIT                           228,000 barrels per day
12. RUSSIA                             214,000 barrels per day
13. BRAZIL                          192,000 barrels per day
14. ECUADOR                     145,000 barrels per day
15. CONGO                          76,000 barrels per day

Of these top 15 providers, 5 are relatively friendly and relatively stable countries.  Together they provided about 43 percent of our imported crude oil (Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Brazil and Ecuador).

7 of the providing countries are either unstable or in unstable regions and provided about 33 percent of our imported crude oil (Iraq, Colombia, Angola, Nigeria, Algeria, Kuwait and Congo).

3 of the providing countries are adversaries and provided about 24 percent of our imported crude oil (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela).  Saudi Arabia is in theory a friendly country, however they continue to fund Islamic fundamentalist schools that teach children to hate the West (and that they should do something about it).  Russia is a competing military and economic power which even though they engage in trade with the U.S., would like to see American influence in the world reduced.  Venezuela is lead by a dictator who on a regular basis denounces America’s evil ways.  On a side note, is it really a good idea to provide these three countries with vast quantities of American dollars?

If we add the percentage of imported crude provided by unreliable providers with the percentage provided by adversaries, we find that they together provided 57 percent of our imported crude oil for the month of February this year.  Since I do not have a 2010 number for percentage of U.S. import oil consumption, let us say that there has not been any change in the rate since 2008.  Of all oil we use in the U.S. we need 57 percent from the rest of the world and in turn, 57 percent of that oil comes from unreliable sources (as defined by me) meaning about 33 percent of our total oil need may or may not be provided for by imports.

U.S. Army risk assessment talks about the likelihood of negative outcome and if that negative outcome were to occur, how severe would the ramifications be.  Following Army logic, if you are not entirely in agreement with my view regarding how much of our oil supply is unreliable let us ponder what would happen if a substantial percentage of our oil supply was interrupted.

One of many cheap political one-liners is “No blood for oil,” made famous during Operation Desert Storm where Iraq occupying forces were forcibly removed from Kuwait.  I believe that 99 percent of the people who ever uttered that phrase owe their continued existence to oil.  Do you walk or ride your bike to work?  Some do, but the vast majority of people drive or use mass transit to get to work which requires fossil fuels in some form.  For everything you buy at your local Wal-Mart at least three trucks were involved (fresh produce which has the shortest route to the store) usually a lot more depending on the number of steps involved in the manufacturing of the good.  Try to think of anything around you that was not brought by a semi truck.  The floor you are standing on, the pencil you are holding, the laptop you are reading this article on, the socks you are wearing, your refrigerator, the cables from the outside which provides your house electricity, the vitamins you took this morning, the car you are going to drive to work, your favorite video game, the mirror you look into every morning in your bathroom, all these things needed multiple trucks to make it into your daily life.  These trucks are not fueled by hocus pocus, wishful thinking or future green technologies.  They are fueled by petroleum products.

A small cut in our oil supply and our lives become uncomfortable.  Everything costs more, you start sacrificing your luxury items in order to afford the necessities.  A medium cut in our oil supply results in increased unemployment, increased crime (people like to eat even if they can not afford it), and political unrest.  A dramatic cut in our oil supply and it is back to basics, survival of the fittest (pure speculation true, but what do you think would happen if all the supermarkets were suddenly empty?).  It is of the highest national security interest that we take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, more specifically, oil from unreliable sources.  How do we do this?  Contrary to the belief of some, rhetoric and promises does not actually reduce the need for oil.  Hopefully in the future, our data manipulating scientists of “Global Climate Change” fame can come up with technology which will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in addition to being better for the environment.  Meanwhile, we need to increase our own oil production for the immediate future which is easier said then done as car driving, Wal-Mart shopping, airplane riding environmentalists make increasing domestic oil production very difficult.

Am I suggesting that we do away with regulations and let the oil companies do whatever they want to get more oil?  No, I am well aware that the oil industry is one of the greedier industries out there but I do suggest that as one considers environmental concerns, also consider the need for increased domestic oil production.  Take for instance drilling for oil in the Alaskan wilderness.  Do you have to commit one hundred percent and turn it in to Kuwait overnight?  Or is it possible to start on a smaller scale to see if it can be done without destroying the local ecosystem?

Recently, the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform sank off the coast of Louisiana.  The resulting oil spill is of historic proportions.  Now be honest, before this news story broke, what is the last oil platform disaster you remember?  The last really big oil spill of this proportion that I remember is the Exxon Valdez but that was a ship, not an oil platform.  Thousands of oil platforms are in service every day and operate so safely that you never hear about them.  Of course, let us examine what went wrong so we can avoid these mistakes in the future, but given the importance of a stable supply of oil, is it too much to ask for our Government to think about the big picture and not give us another knee jerk reaction?  Did we stop using oil tankers after the Exxon Valdez disaster?  Is there another big plan for how to increase domestic oil production besides additional coastal drilling?  Did I miss it?  You can try to fill your gas tank with “green technology” from the future but I am almost certain the resulting mileage will be terrible!  Given how much time our legislators spend finding places to sneak in earmarks and legislation for their campaign contributors, given how much time the executive branch spends watching television so they can call out political pundits by name, I believe they should be able to give this issue the time it deserves.

Tom The Amateur Thinker

Have you ever heard any one claim that Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal wars because Congress never declared war?  When you hear this argument made, the speaker has managed to sort through a host of very complex constitutional issues which legal scholars are still divided over.

Most of us know that the power to declare war rests with the Congress but the military is commanded by the Commander-in-chief, the President.  Does the Constitution classify all military actions as war?  When someone uses the words “illegal war” they are frequently referring to the War Powers Resolution of 1973.  This was legislation passed by Congress which requires the President to notify Congress of intent to send troops into harms way within 48 hours.  It further forbids troops from being deployed for more than 60 days (with an additional 30 day withdrawal period) without Congressional authorization or a formal declaration of war.  Me and Forest Gump aren’t smart men but how does Congress state what the President will or will not do?  Is that not supposed to come from the Constitution?

I want the President to be able to send troops into combat the way we have been doing it.  I believe that technically the Korean War, the Vietnam War and Desert Storm should have been declared wars but it would have been very bad if they actually had been declared wars.  A high intensity, all out, nation on nation confrontation should not be fought without a declaration of war.  However, smaller conflicts like the invasion of Grenada and Panama, Kosovo and Afghanistan should be controlled by the Commander-in-Chief alone.  Why?  An excellent example of this is former presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry.  He voted for the legislation which authorized President Bush to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq before he voted against it.  Legislators are frequently not willing to take a stand on controversial issues until they can read the polls and see which way the voting public is leaning.  In the hour of decision, these are not the people I trust the fate of our nation and the fate of our young warriors to.  I also do not see the benefits of telegraphing to the world, to include potential adversaries, strategies and responses by a grand standing Congress.

However, let us say that any and all American military involvement which bears the risk of active hostilities must be authorized by a declaration of war.  Allow me then to go “alternative history” on you and speculate how things might have turned out differently.

The Korean War escalated into World War 3 because “The Greatest Generation” was still in charge and they believed that communism was an evil force on par with fascism and therefore had to be stopped.  When the U.S. declared war on North Korea, China declared war on the U.S. and China’s close ally, the Soviet Union sided with its ally and also declared war on the U.S.

The Vietnam War escalated into World War 4 for the same reasons as the Korean War escalated into World War 3.  The U.S. declared war on North Vietnam because of their attempt to forcibly subjugate South Vietnam.  North Vietnam’s sponsors and close allies, China and the Soviet Union, declared in response war on the U.S.

Grenada remains a Cuban “protectorate” today as the U.S. Congress failed to declare war on Cuba due to war weariness from World War 3 and 4.

Noriega remains a dictator for life in Panama allowing a free flow of drugs and other illegal activities thru his country.  Sanctions spearheaded by the United States have been in place for several years but have been ineffective due to China and the Soviet Union blocking any efforts to get the sanctions approved by the UN.

The Middle Eastern War, aka “The Modern Crusade”, began when the U.S. declared war on Iraq because of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.  The declaration of war by a western country against an Islamic country alienated most of the Arab nations (most of whom were actually opposed to Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait) and they joined Iraq in what they saw as a fight against western attempts to interfere with the region and the Muslim way of life.

The Balkan Ethnic Wars continue to this day with all four parties, Croats, Serbs, Muslims and Bosnians having committed large scale atrocities.  Weak willed attempts at enforcing cease fires by United Nations peace keeping troops have failed miserably and Western Europe have been reluctant to clean up their own backyard without American support.  With no clear nation to declare war against, the U.S. decided it was a European issue and declined to get involved.

The Second Middle Eastern War, aka “The Second Crusade”, began when the U.S. declared war on Afghanistan after a major terrorist attack which occurred on American soil which claimed over 3,000 American lives.  It was discovered the attack had been planned and directed from Afghanistan by a terrorist group which enjoyed the full support of that country’s fundamentalist government.  In order to prevent further attacks against America and its citizens, the US declared war on Afghanistan in order to deny the terrorists an operating base and to remove the fundamentalists from power.  Once again the Muslim countries of the region resisted the aggression by the Great Satan and allied themselves with Afghanistan in the fight against the West.

Back in the real world, in summary, there is a place for declarations of war and there is a place for regional Commander-In-Chief initiated hostilities.  ”Illegal war” arguments today usually refer to Afghanistan and Iraq.  Congress did in fact authorize the use of force in Iraq and attempts to pass legislation forcing withdrawal in Afghanistan have failed.  It would appear to me that the President is not “going it alone” and that he has the support of the Congress in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Using the term “illegal war” is a lot like referring to late term abortions as “partial-birth” abortions, you are opposed to something so you label it with the most extreme words you can.

Tom The Amateur Thinker