Concealed Carry and its Effect on Local Communities

We in Illinois are only a couple of weeks away from some form of concealed carry. The legislature, citing fears for our safety, will probably pass new laws which through careful wording will continue to restrict our rights and no one will be allowed to carry their gun in public, or Belleville’s leadership will do the same if home rule passes. So before this happens consider this. Thirty one years ago, in 1982 the town of Kennesaw Georgia passed the first of its kind law, requiring gun ownership by all households. Since then not one resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender. The violent crime rate for Kennesaw is 85% lower than the Georgia state average and the property crime rate was 56% lower. Wouldn’t you want those statistics here in Belleville? Georgia is a “shall issue” state with about 600,000 people carrying their gun, Illinois is a no issue state with no one carrying a gun. The Illinois government says no guns are safer. Yet crime stats say Aggravated Assault, Forcible Rape, Murder, and Robbery are all lower in Georgia than in Illinois. Since 1999 Belleville’s crime rate has increased, Kennesaw’s crime rate has decreased.
Per City Data’s web site Belleville’s danger rating is 405, Kennesaw’s is 111. Despite a population growth from about 5000 to almost 30,000 in Kennesaw both violent crime and property crime are lower now than in 2000. High crime rates affect all areas in a community, Belleville’s population growth is effectively 0%, 1990 pop, 42,785, 2010 pop. 44,478, nobody wants to move here. While Kennesaw’s (the city with the guns) growth is 600%. Kennesaw is over twice the distance to Atlanta than we are to St. Louis but people are rapidly moving there because it is safer. Are people not moving to Belleville because it isn’t safer? Belleville average home value is $140,000, while Kennesaw’s is $160,000. Belleville’s average income is $43, 000 Kennesaw’s is $59,000. Since we live in the last state to restrict concealed carry you would think Belleville is a safe place to live. But our violent crime rate is 25 points higher than the national average, and our property crime rate is 173 points higher than the rest of the nation. Let us carry for our safety and maybe one day we will match Kennesaw’s stats.

The Left's Ideas on Hitler, Gun Control and History

A recent article was pointed out by a friend on Facebook. In my opinion I found the article to be so full of twists, half-truths and spin as to be insulting. I could not help but dissect it to see what made it tick.

Titled: The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong

By Alex Seitz-Wald

The original Article  

Sorry only one way to say it, what a specious set of arguments and half-truths. To start at the top, Mr. Seitz-Wald said the Drudge headline was merely speculating that the President would proceed with executive orders. In truth Drudge was not speculating, they were quoting.  The Office of the President via the Vice President said they are going to use the power of the executive order:  "The president is going to act," Biden said. Executive order, executive action that can be taken; we haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action, we believe, is required."

Mr. Seitz-Wald then sites a Slate link that attempts to prove his argument that those on the right are wrong because as they put it “For someone who's spent so much time on gun legislation, Biden's awfully ignorant…” Wow, so we  gun owners should not be worried, because our Vice President is ignorant of the Constitution. Thanks that made me feel much better. Plus the President is tasking Eric Holder for help in limiting my ownership of firearms. That would be the same Attorney General that said he was clueless about the actions of his office and the ATF in Fast and Furious, a scheme that resulted in the deaths of many people. Not only did his people break the law directly in this but they forced law-abiding gun store owners to become accomplices under the threat of administrative and judicial harassment.  

I would add that we on the right fear the executive order and so should all Americans. In other countries the executive order is called a decree. It is issued by an all-powerful leader and cannot be overturned. 

In the history of the United States only two executive orders have ever been overturned.  Congress can change law in an attempt to override it, but the President has the power to veto the attempt and a super majority is then required to defeat him.  The power of the order is absolute, and trumps the Constitution in many ways. Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt locked up American citizens for indefinite periods without trial. President Clinton went to war in Kosovo in 1999 under an executive order. Which as a side note, since we still have troops in Kosovo makes it the longest war in American history, not as the news mistakenly points out the war in Afghanistan.

Mr. Seitz-Wald states that the NRA, Fox News and most gun owners etc. “all agree that gun control was critical to Hitler’s rise to power.” He also goes on to quote the NRA head Wayne LaPierre from his book Guns, Crime, and Freedom “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.” Since Mr. Seitz-Wald uses the term “dwelled on” in his explanation I am assuming he disagrees with this. To a certain extent so do I. The line should have been “In Germany, the ground work for Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938.” In any case Mr. Seitz-Wald then makes a subtle misquote that he intends to use to invalidate their argument “the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus.” By this he is redirecting what they said i.e. gun “control was critical to Hitler” into total confiscation was bogus.  Bluntly he is stating a falsehood and thinks you will not catch it.

But what we on the right are saying, that “gun control was critical to Hitler” is absolutely correct. Hitler did not take everyone’s guns. He took all the Jew’s guns. He eliminated any restrictions against gun ownership and what we now call concealed carry for those in his party, the Nazi party. He did the same for all government workers and elected officials. Private citizens, as long as they were not Jews could in a very limited fashion own guns but not carry concealed.  Oddly enough we have the same laws more or less in America now. In all states that do not allow concealed carry for its residents, all elected officials are allowed to carry. Even in Illinois where no one is allowed to carry upon punishment of prison and huge fines any official who is sworn into office may carry any time they wish. From the Governor down to the local aldermen they may all carry, you may not. If you think this would change under new federal legislation, I think you would be wrong. Even felons, if elected and sworn in will, by law be allowed to carry. No I am not making that up. Hubert Norris a convicted felon ran for Sheriff of Fayette County TN, once elected he could carry.

Once Hitler had control of who did and did not own a gun he was assured a victory in things like The Night of the Long Knives where Hitler eliminated his political opposition by killing them and Kristallnacht which is probably the real start of the Jew’s extermination. By the end of Kristallnacht the first 30,000 Jews from all over Germany were headed to the camps. What would have been the outcome of that night and what effect would it have had on world history if the Jews had been armed? There is of course no way to tell. But by the use of gun control to insure a disarmed Jewish populace there was only one outcome left.

But, back to Mr. Seitz-Wald and his article, he states “And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.” 

Why does this not make any sense? Mr. Seitz-Wald does not offer any support for his assertion he merely states it as fact and expects you to read it and believe it. 

Does Mr. Seitz-Wald think the Jewish people would not defend themselves and their families? Does he think they would be incapable of fighting back? The history of the Jewish people in Israel does not back up that theory. Had the Jews of Germany been armed and had they used those arms there would have been a protracted period of civil war in Germany. Their attackers were not the army; they were not even the police. The Jews of Germany were attacked by the SA paramilitary and civilians.

The fictional American equivalent would be if President Truman had in his last year in office allowed the KKK and the Dixiecrats lead by Robert Byrd to kill all the blacks in the south in a movement called the Crystal Night. In this fictional situation it would be fair to say that guns were too expensive to the owned in large number by the poor blacks of Alabama or Georgia. 

So could we then change Mr. Seitz-Wald’s quote to “And the ancillary claim that blacks could have stopped the Crystal Night with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.”  When transposed into the American culture his comments show up as both ridiculous and racist. Odd, if you use that quote about blacks it is a bad thing, if you say the same about Jews he figures you will be ok with it.

Mr. Seitz-Wald then goes on to use an expert, Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt, to twist the truth around into a pretzel. He quotes from an article by Mr. Harcourt stating that the gun laws in Germany prior to 1938 were tougher. This is true. He quotes Mr. Harcourt “In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.” Again this is true. 

But then Mr. Seitz-Wald puts the twist on the truth with “The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general.” So we should not consider it an argument against gun control that by disarming the people Hitler intended to send to the death camps it made it easier to do so? 

He continues to spin the truth with unrelated comparisons. He says “Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning?” These are two unrelated things. Ghettos had existed for hundreds of years thought Europe. They were by law the only places a Jew could live. Urban planning is a program where a city’s living spaces are designed to blend into the city layout in a functional manner. I can only construe that Mr. Seitz-Wald is referring to the mistaken belief that urban planning equals’ ghettos or that blacks are forced to live there and so they become ghettos.  What he also fails to understand is that the Jewish ghettos of the past were surrounded by walls and gates which the Jewish inhabitants could and did close for protection. 

More twisting is applied by his comment, “Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews?”  This is incorrect, during Kristallnacht the police did not participate in the killings. They stood by and allowed it to happen. So a better question would be, ”Should we eliminate the police if they allow an armed mob to slaughter unarmed innocents?” But if asked that way it invalidates Mr. Seitz-Wald’s argument.  

Lastly he asked “What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not.”  I’m not even sure what the heck Mr. Seitz-Wald means by that statement.  It is not very well written but part of the preceding sentence starts with “Should we eliminate all police…” So I guess he is asking should we eliminate public works because Hitler liked them. Again I don’t see a connection from it to gun control but it spins his argument into a position where if you are against gun control then you are against public works. So how can you be against that? Of course if you asked the question in its historical reference you get “Hitler loved public works projects which used the slave labor of the Jews. Should you be against working thousands and thousands of slaves to death to improve the infrastructure and economy of a dictatorship?” That question should be followed up with “If you have the ability and the arms to oppose this slavery should you rise up and fight against it?” Seems we did just that about 150 years ago. I guess Mr. Seitz-Wald does not think that was a viable option since it required an armed populous. By the way it was illegal in the south for a black man free or slave to own a gun. From long before the Revolution of 1776 to long after the Civil war gun ownership was denied to blacks. The southern slave owners feared there would be an uprising against them, and rightly so. In that case gun control worked to keep an oppressed people in the yoke of slavery. Why does Mr. Seitz-Wald disapprove of a free person being able to defend themselves?

More experts are brought into the argument, he uses a historian, Omer Bartov, who notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. Mr. Bartov justifies this with “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery.” 

Again a specious argument, in the years from 1939 to 1944 Germany had years of massive arms buildup and millions of soldiers under arms. At the onset in 1939 what effect would it have had if an armed Jewish rebellion had arisen to confront a newly elected Hitler? Would Neville Chamberlain have given in to Hitler over the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia or Poland if there was a civil war going on in Germany? 

The one historical occasion of an armed resistance to the Nazi was the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Mr. Seitz-Wald basically dismisses it as a failure, which it was as the Jews lost and were for the most part all killed. But Mr. Seitz-Wald offers no viable option to what they did, he just considers it a lost cause. What should the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto done Mr. Seitz-Wald? Peacefully surrender to their fate I guess. How noble of him to recommend they accept death by starvation over fighting back with a gun.

In my opinion the article at this point begins to dissolve into a mash of unrelated experts and references that have no bearing in the argument. An example is the reference to Robert Spitzer, a political scientist who studies gun politics who says “that the prohibition on Jewish gun ownership was merely a symptom, not the problem itself. “[It] wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group,” he explained.”

That is pretty much the reference, what it means in relationship anything else is unknown. I don’t think however it supports Mr. Seitz-Wald’s intent. No the disarming of the Jews in Germany was not the root problem. It was however a symptom of or a warning of a tyrannical regime about to inflect a level of mass murder and oppression not seen in the modern world. And no it wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people, but it sure helped pave the way.

Mr. Seitz-Wald cites a quote from Hitler often used by the right as being historically incorrect, probably true. But the quote does express the feeling that most gun owners have that denying a person the right to protect themselves is the first step to tyranny and ends in failure to establish peace or safety.

For some reason at this point Mr. Seitz-Wald allows Stalin to enter the conversation. “As for Stalin,” Bartov continued, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him.”  So the unarmed Russian people who Stalin slaughtered in numbers that make Hitler look like a pauper is used by Mr. Seitz-Wald as an example against gun ownership? What?

He continues, “Bartov added that this misreading of history is not only intellectually dishonest, but also dangerous.  “I happen to have been a combat soldier and officer in the Israeli Defense Forces and I know what these assault rifles can do,” he said in an email.” Again, What?

To try to understand him maybe, “misreading of history is not only intellectually dishonest, but also dangerous.” Ok maybe he means since all attempts to defend yourself against Stalin’s and Hitler’s type of oppression have failed we should not repeat that folly, submit and live. The submit part went well for a time. Of course the live part did not work out well for the Jews under Hitler or the people starved to death under Stalin, but they didn’t own any of those nasty guns while they died.

As for “I happen to have been a combat soldier and officer in the Israeli Defense Forces and I know what these assault rifles can do” I’m also not sure what he means by this but maybe he wants the Palestinians to agree to follow the submit and live part of his idea. But I don’t see them agreeing to the gun control side of Mr. Seitz-Wald ideas.

Finally and this one took some re-reading to follow, “Their assertion that they need these guns to protect themselves from the government — as supposedly the Jews would have done against the Hitler regime — means not only that they are innocent of any knowledge and understanding of the past, but also that they are consciously or not imbued with the type of fascist or Bolshevik thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”

Here’s what I got out of it. 

Gun owner’s belief that their guns will protect them from an evil regime like Hitler’s will fail just like it did for the Jews, so submit and live. 

Gun owners are ignorant of the history which shows that attempting to defend yourself against tyranny will fail, so submit and live.

Gun owners are either fascists (A person who believes in an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government) or a Bolshevik (normally a left-wing majority group that followed Lenin i.e. the Communist party). 

Can't have it both ways sir. Although in this case I think he means a Bolshevik is a violent radical. So a desire to live free or die and a willingness to enforce that belief with arms makes you a violent radical fascist. 

Lastly, “thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”

Means to me Mr. Seitz-Wald thinks gun owners are racists who believe Obama was born in Kenya.

Public Safety, Guns, Drinking and the Constitution

 

Recently The Journal News of New York, published the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. It has of course raised a firestorm of both support and anger.

 

One aspect of this not being addressed, in my opinion, is that this is not news. This is an attempt to support an agenda and as such would have failed the journalistic test of reporting the news. Gun ownership is both a right and a legal activity in which millions of people participate; as such merely owning a gun is not newsworthy. The article was filed under New/Local News, not as an opinion piece. They could have stated that statistically more crimes are committed by those without high school diplomas and then using a Freedom of Information request to gather the data, published the addresses of all high school dropouts in the area. But that would not have fit their belief set so of course they would never do that.

 

Again in my opinion they took the cowardly route.  Had the newspaper filed it as an opinion piece it would have had to expressed its opinion on gun ownership which would have placed them in the position of stating they believe gun ownership is bad. That would have probably negatively effected their revenue. I also don't believe they expected the repercussions they have received. Which has also had a negative effect their revenue.

 

But, to defend their actions the newspaper argues that gun ownership makes other people less safe and so is news. If you support their actions in publishing gun owners addresses, how do you feel about them publishing the addresses of other people who participate in, Danger to Society, activities? Drinking and driving is certainly dangerous to society. So the newspaper, in the interest of public safety, could stake out the bars in town, collect the license plate numbers for all who go to a bar on Friday or Saturday night and publish the customers'  addresses, maybe call it the "Drunks Report" or "DUI Dangerous List". 

 

The police could certainly use the info. Being on the list five times a month would give the police probable cause to track you down and do a spot sobriety check. Insurance companies could adjust rates up or down based on how often you show up in the list. Spouses could use the info to see if their significant other was really working late. Homeowner associations could add articles to their agreements about how many times you can go to a bar before you have to move out. Your workplace can use it to determine if they really should promote you. The list of positive things this could do for society could go on and on.

 

DUI rates would plummet, spouses would have a way to insure trust, insurance rates for those who do not drink would go down, work production would rise, and neighborhoods would be better/safer. What could be wrong with all of those?

 

Based on their argument of exposing your privacy is for the public good this would be a great public service. The community would become a much safer place and isn't that what the newspaper is advocating, for everyone to be willing to give up a just a little freedom, just some of your privacy for a little more  safety for everyone else?

 

The Journal Article is here:

Gun owner list.  

 

When Good Guns Go Bad

With all the talk about and incorrect information about what makes an Assault Rifle I thought it would be helpful to show how to modify a "good gun" into a "bad gun."

The changes do not make the original gun into an Assault Rifle. But it does change the look of the gun and so it is considered bad.

It its simplest form this is the equivalent for clipping a couple of playing cards onto the spokes your Western Flyer bicycle and calling it a motorcycle.

The Gun Culture of Yesteryear, Children and Guns and Dangerous Ads

The Huffington Post recently ran an article trying to show how evil guns are by showing us old advertisements from back in the day when it was normal for a father to want his son to have a gun.

Isn't it frightening to know that during 30's, 40's and 50's when those ads ran that those children grew up learning about guns, using guns, owning guns and as a result of that culture and misguided training there were hundreds of mass shootings and murders each year. School shootings, "Drive Bys" and getting killed for your Converse Sneakers or Decoder Rings were a common threat in the 1950's.

It was only after we as a culture began to teach them that guns were evil things waiting to kill people and once we stopped teaching them how to respect and use guns that the mass shootings stopped. It is nice to know we live in such safer times than when those evil ads were used. Unlike the poor children of those deadly days in the 1940's and 1950's who had to spend their days enclosed in their homes sheltered by parents who could not allow them to play freely even in their own yards, unless a parent could watch over them. 

The children of today can, thanks to the enlightened thinking that as isolated them for things like learning the responsibility of owning even a BB gun, today's children can leave their homes on Saturday morning, spend their day playing with their friends and not come home again till dusk and their parents know they will be safe. 

Yes we can all laugh at those poor foolish parents of yesteryear.

Those Violent Gun Ads of the Past

Amsterdam's plans for the Wrong Thinking

Amsterdam's Labour party mayor, Eberhard van der Laan, plans to begin moving people who are considered anti-social out of their homes and into housing camps consisting of used shipping containers.

Apparently in Holland you can complain to the government if you think your neighbor is behaving in ways or is saying things you do not like. This does not appear to refer to people who commit crimes, those could be handled by the police and the courts. The new plan calls for the creation of special team of district officials who will question your neighbors and evaluate your behavior and determine if you need to be re-educated on how to behave. I would like to recommend they be called the Stasi. Since this is a term well known in Europe with a rich tradition of law enforcement and for getting your friends and family to rat you out for not following the orders of the ruling class. Yes the name Stasi should serve them well.

Bartho Boer, the mayor's spokesman says they do not like to refer to new homes as shipping containers. They prefer to call them living containers. He points out the living containers will even have showers. I think, given the European history of how they treat undesirables I'd stay away from those showers.

It also appears that if you do not bend to the will of the government and stop you anti-social ways by the end of your six month re-education the government will confiscate your old home and move you and your family to a new permanent dwelling. I wonder who gets the money from the sale of the old homes and all the possessions inside. I'm sure there will be lots of Swiss banks more than willing to handle that for them.

Since the Dutch seem to be so inclined to revive old European traditions perhaps they should re-enact that other old program of requiring those whose life styles do not meet their approval wear a nice yellow symbol on their clothes. Just replace the yellow Juden star with a Smiley Star but turn the smile upside down to let all the right thinking people know to stay away from those dirty anti-social people.

Not only should this news frighten you with all its possibilities. But in a wonderful display of spin all the news stories have by the end of the reports shifted the message and the onus from the liberal on the left who's plan it is to the person on the right who has nothing to do with what is being suggested. They have managed to refer to right wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders and in a very subtle way seem to make it appear that this is his idea even though it is had been devised by and is being implemented by the liberal left. Way to go news writers.

Remember "If you see something, say something."

"Liberal" Amsterdam

The Huffington Post's Take

Obama, the Fiscal Cliff and a 1966 Thunderbird

A friend on Facebook pointed out an article by Derek Thompson, a senior editor at The Atlantic. The article, titled Rich People Who Don't Understand Taxes Should Be Told So, went into great detail in explaining the distinction between marginal and total tax rates.
This quote in particular caught my eye, “According to the president's plan, every dollar under $250,000 of earned income will enjoy the same tax cut it has today. He's only pledged to raise taxes on income above that level by about 5%. So, if you make $251,000 next year, your tax bill wouldn't go up by $12,000. It would go up by $50. A steak dinner, not a small car.”
Now I take umbrage with the thought that my dollars “enjoy” having 15 to 20% of them whacked off the top before I get to spend them. But that is for another discussion.
What I’m writing about now is how the 5% increase is shown in his article to be so small as to not even matter. Why, it is only fifty dollars, just one less steak dinner! If you make two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year fifty bucks is no big deal, why are you so upset about fifty dollars?
I thought this a fair question. So I did some research and some math and this is why we should be upset.

Per IRS and Census data:
There are 6 million people who make over $250K but less than $1 million.
There are 235,000 people who made more than $1 million but less than $10 million.
 Finally, there are only 8000 people who made more than $10 million.
I could find no figure showing what the highest personal income was.
Remember this whole plan is based on personal income, not net worth. George Soros is worth $19 billion, but earns about $30 million a year.
Starting with the bottom group in the $250K to $1 million income range; some just make over the 250K mark and some make 999K. To simplify, let’s divide it down the middle and say there are 6 million who make $500K in income a year.
Now the math part:
500K income minus the 250K already taxed equals 250K taxable at the new Obama rate of 5% which equals $12500 more taxes per person.
Then take the $12500 in new tax dollars and multiply times the six million people who fall into that new bracket and you get 75 billion dollars more coming into the Treasury.
Next is the 235,000 people who make between 1 and 10 Million dollars a year. So split the difference again: 5 million in income minus 250K equals 4.75 million dollars in taxable income times the 5% equals $237500 more in taxes per person. $237500 times 235,000 people equals 55.8 billon dollars more.
Now the last one is hard because I can't find the top end. The IRS says there are 8000 people in the USA who make more than $10 million but there is no way to tell what max is, so let’s go with 20 million as an average. That's a fair number since you have people like Will Smith who make $20 million a movie. So again $20 million minus the 250K equals $19,750,000 taxable income times the 5% equals $987,500 more in taxes. $987,500 times 8000 people equals $7.9 billion.
Okay, so the total tax receipts based on the Obama tax hike are 75 billion + 55.8 billion + 7.9 billion equals $139 billion. The total personal income of the USA is 12.9 Trillion dollars. It looks like Obama may be cutting just over 1% of the total personal income of the country off the top. That is much more than a steak dinner but not enough to make a difference towards our debt and deficit.
Of course the government spends $6.8 million dollars a minute, so 20,000 minutes or less than two weeks later it is all gone.
The big question is how do we fix whatever is wrong with the economy. Just how giving the government $139 billion more dollars will do that is a mystery. We will have 139 billion less to spend and if you pushed all the new money up against the $14 trillion in national debt it is a drop in the bucket. The Fed is printing $40 billion dollars a month out of thin air to cover the overhead. So taking three months of Monopoly money out of the pot will make no difference.
In the end I see that Obama’s tax plan will only be good for the first year, after that the tax receipts will probably go down. Since as it has been pointed out most of the 6 million people are small businesses that are taxed at the personal rate. This coming year if Obama gets his way and raises taxes they will incorporate and reduce their tax burden in the following year.
So why all the fuss about what, in government terms, is not a lot of money? In a word Politics, my friend, Politics. This issue in my opinion gives the President and the Democrats something, a cause, to use to drive over the cliff. Like Thelma and Louise they are headed to the cliff in their Thunderbird, smiles on their faces and an absolute certainty they have won. If they can take us over the fiscal cliff and blame the Republicans all the way down then they think they are winning the political game, we are just collateral damage in the process.