Why Give Military Aid to Terrorists' Friend?

Okay, dismiss this as the U.S. simply propping up Mideast governments -- something Ron Paul and others have been pointing to all along -- but I, for one, am a little surprised at the news behind the news as we read of a hold being put on military aid to Lebanon.

Whatever are we doing, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars toward Lebanon's military might to begin with? Why would we give money to a nation that might be considered somewhat of an enemy? If not our own enemy, Lebanon certainly is an enemy of Israel, our ally. Now, we are not talking of humanitarian aid. We are speaking of us giving them money to fulfill military objectives.

We donated to Lebanon's military for 2009 (how much, I do not know), we have allocated $100 million for 2010, and the Obama Administration has asked for another $100 million for 2011.

I can tell you what the reasoning seems to be. It is that if we give Lebanon some money, it will help wean that country from tying itself to influences in the Arab world that we don't want it to have -- primarily meaning Hezbollah.

I'm afraid that is dangerous logic. Would we give money to a drug dealer to help him become independent of the drug cartel? Yes, we would love Lebanon to be independent of Hezbollah, but it takes only a cursory look at the landscape to see we simply should not go about it this way.

(Note: The lead on this post was rewritten Aug. 11.)

Rio Tinto Project Makes Coburn-McCain Report

That Coburn-McCain listing of wasteful spending in the Obama Stimulus bill, what was a Utah firm doing on it?

Rio Tinto, to be exact. True, Rio Tinto isn't headquartered in Utah, but as Rio Tinto's very significant holding -- the Kennecott copper mine, the world's largest open-pit mining operation -- is in Utah, that makes Rio Tinto a Utah connection.

And, no, I don't know whether Rio Tinto is mentioned by name in the Coburn-McCain study, but the a project it has is mentioned.

It was Tuesday Good Morning America broke the story, senators Tom Coburn and John McCain giving the program an exclusive. The Coburn-McCain study lists 100 questionable projects receiving stimulus money.

Like $71,623 to study monkeys on cocaine.

And, $554,763 to replace windows at a visitor center at Mount St. Helens that was closed in 2007.

And, $1 million to study exotic ants in the Southwest Indian Ocean islands and in East Africa.

And, $200,000 to help folks in Siberia lobby Russian decision makers.

Mind you, I am not saying everything in the Coburn-McCain report is accurate, or correct. I'm just conveying the allegations.

Now, here's a quote from a news story at abcnews.go.com:

"In perhaps the most eye-popping instance, the report says oil giant BP, the company behind the worst oil spill in the nation's history, is benefiting from $308 million given to Hydrogen Energy California -- a company it owns -- to build a California power plant that won't even break ground for another two years."

The abc.go.com story goes on to say the California project BP has is actually a 50/50 cost-share with Rio Tinto. In addition, it turns out only $175 million in stimulus money is going to the power plant, with by far most of the funding coming from private enterprise. And, perhaps 47 current employees owe their jobs to the stimulus money.

What do I think of the Coburn-McCain report? I think we should be thankful for any false projects it has brought to light. It is too bad we are not looking for monies not yet spent that we might rescind.

Wasting Money to Save the Economy?

Tuesday, Good Morning America's Jon Karl broke the story of senators John McCain and Tom Coburn listing government waste in Obama's stimulus package, one of which was $71,623 going to Wake Forest University to study how monkeys react to stress when under the influence of cocaine.

These type of stories quickly bring ridicule. I certainly found myself laughing when I heard it. Government funding to study monkeys on cocaine? Oh, boy!

I googled up an old story of how the same Wake Forest University has studied monkeys on cocaine before. Science Digest reported it in 2008. That study showed that monkeys with lower social status were more likely to choose cocaine over food when in stressful situations.

Wake Forest's scientists say much good will come of the new study, helping to understand the addiction and why addicts slip into relapse. I don't know. Perhaps so. Still, I am not at all in favor of public funds for this study.

I've heard the $71,000 for the new study, and many of the other abuses on the McCain-Coburn list, were things that went into the stimulus bill to get it passed, rather than being actual save-the-economy measures.

I don't know that that is the case, though. It seems the good portion of the stimulus went for things we didn't necessarily need. We spent the $862 billion simply to be injecting money into the economy. We reaped some benefit whether the money ended up being spent on needs or on things not needed.

I don't know how many of the projects on the McCain-Coburn list are trully wasteful, but I would be rather sure many of them are. Inserting such waste into the stimulus is the same as saying, "Our economy is in big trouble, so let's waste some money to save it."

Sorry Judge Threw Out Prop 8

Well, it is eight minutes before bedtime, but I am attempting to post an opinion on a news item each day.


A circuit court in California overturning Proposition 8? I favored Prop 8. I do not see it wrong that a marriage be defined as being between an man and a woman.

Give Panhandlers Jobs

I do wonder what would happen to panhandlers if we gave them all jobs.

Salt Lake City is revamping its law on panhandlers. The Deseret News today reports they won't be allowed within 10 feet of outdoor cafes, theater lines, churches, and public transit stops. They will also be in violation if they follow a person after a solicitation or make threatening gestures.

What if we just gave them all jobs? What if every couple hours a man came out from a small factory, offering every panhandler within sight to come with him to the pasta plant and work for a few hours?

It doesn't even need to be the government doing this, lest you fear I'm advocating an act of socialism. We already have a world full of philanthropists, and they are as abundant in Utah as most anywhere.

Why not encourage them to philanthropically create small companies for the panhandlers? This will take philanthropy into new territory, as I really don't hear about philanthropists doing this. I hear about them giving to cancer research, to education, and to one thing and another.

I see charity organizations geared to feeding the homeless, providing relief to disaster victims, and helpiing people medically.

But, I don't see many charities creating small companies just to give people jobs.

Why not?

Invention of the Week: Locked-in Taxes

I borrow from KSL's Doug Wright for the invention of the week. Doug suggests property taxes for senior citizens be locked in. I agree, they should cap at the amount the person makes when he or she is 65. If they drop, the senior gets the reduced tax, but they cannot increase beyond what they were when the person retired.

No, It Should Not be the American Way

The best and brightest: They err here, on the issue of special-interest money.

Whether I would consider U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz among the best and brightest, I am not certain, but sufficient to say I like him.

And, sufficient to say he errs. My humble opinion, of course, but I don't believe it right to take money from those who hope for political favor in exchange for political contributions.

Chaffetz differs. He all but calls it the American way, if indeed that is not exactly what he is saying. "I believe in the United States of America, you should be able to donate what you want to who you want as long as there is full disclosure," he is quoted as saying in today's Salt Lake Tribune.

I beg to differ. Full disclosure it not enough. A wrong is not a right simply because it becomes transparent.

Chaffetz is under attack in the Tribune's lead story. "Chaffetz's top donors: Unions," says the headline. The article says unions are the single largest source of campaign contributions for Chaffetz.

And, we are not talking just any unions, we are talking unions having to negotiate new contracts with the U.S. Postal Service in the next few years. Clearly, they are currying his favor, for, according to the Tribune, Chaffetz is the top Republican on the House subcommittee overseeing the Postal Service.

"This is why I'm sure people are trying to be friendly," the article quotes Chaffetz as saying.

Oh, did ever the article catch my attention. I am campaigning on this very issue. I do not feel comfortable taking money from those whose issues I would be coming before the legislature. I am not going to take any contributions, other than spending from my own pocket. "This time, in this election," I tell voters, "you have a choice."

I'm hoping the chance of electing someone who is not accepting such money will mean something to voters.

-- John Jackson, candidate, Utah House District 41