Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Waiting for Sept. 1, 2012

We love BYU football. Can't wait for Sept. 1.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Need Money? Close Korean Posts.

If this is a time of budget cutting and we're starting to gut medical care and education and other core needs, then lets go ahead and put everything on the table - including Korea.

After three years of open warfare the Korean Conflict concluded with a stalemate in July 1953. That means that next year will mark the sixtieth year since hostilities ended. The Chinese-backed Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) remained communist; the US-backed Republic of Korea remained in the South. The greatest powers for democracy and communism drew a draw. For fear of another invasion, the United States left forces in the peninsula. Decades later the tensions remain, but the risk of a Chinese invasion declined until today when there is little likelihood that either China or the US would launch any invasion across the demilitarized zone. Nevertheless, a formal state of war still exists. Of course if you watch the news on North Korea's latest missile test mishap it is obvious that the DPRK is ever less a threat to South Korea, and certainly no threat to the United States. One fun fact is that the DPRK faces such extensive malnutrition that they just dropped the minimum height requirement for military service to 4'9. A few inches won't make you shoot a gun any more accurate, but it is still hard to imagine the average DPRK soldier as an intimidating foe.

As I sat in my office today I pondered the many ways the US could cut its budget and eventually my mind turned to our bases in South Korea. Do we really need those bases? Are we really afraid of the North Koreans? What threat could the DPRK possibly offer to us that requires the tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in Korea and the billions of dollars we spend there each year? I resolved to look into it further.

In a recent article published by the Foreign Policy in Focus think tank, authors Christine Ahn and Sukjong Hong provide a variety of helpful facts in analyzing this issue. The full text of their article can be found here. Below I've included a few highlights.

In 2010, the United States spent $41.6 billion on its 662 official foreign soil bases (plus more piles of cash on hundreds of other temporary bases). The US has 70 permanent bases in South Korea where 25,000 men are stationed. These Korean bases cost American taxpayers somewhere between $15 and $20 billion each year.

It is even more interesting to note that there is significant civilian opposition to the US bases, and to the continual expansion of those bases. The Cato institute found that between 1988 and 1996, American soldiers in Korea committed an average of two crimes each day. Additionally, as bases expanded, local people resisted dispossession. The best example is that in 2007 some 94% of the people of Gangjeong voted to oppose a new US base only to suffer significant government pressures. Eventually farmers sold out and in 2009 Korea approved the construction. This is only the latest example of uprooting villages for bases, and there is growing resentment in Korea.

So if the threat to United States citizens is nearly non existent, and many Koreans don't even want us there, why is the United States is spending $20 billion/year to maintain and staff these bases? There are several answers; the first relates to international security. Tim Shorrock's book Spies for Hire argues that several bases, particularly Pyeongtaek and Osan, serve as hubs for international surveillance activity. The US only has to respect the privacy of US citizens, and those bases are valuable centers for easedropping on North Korea, as well as South Korea, China, Vietnam, and other Asian nations.

Furthermore, the former commander of US forces in Korea Commander Generall B.B. Bell explained that South Korea is also a center of trade and commerce that the US must protect for our own economic interests. He said, “Twenty-five percent of the world’s trade flows through northeast Asia. Whether it’s Korea, Japan, or China, if you’re trading in the world, one out of every four things you trade, commodity-wise and dollar-wise, is going through that area.” Bases in Korea allow the US to protect international economic interests, he says.

The final argument for maintaining Korean bases is simply for a quick response to any threats by China or anybody else in the Pacific. We need to be ready and able to respond on a moments notice.

All three of these justifications for maintaining the bases have merit, but I can't help but question the need for such extensive entanglement. Do we really need 70 bases and 25,000 men at a cost of $20 billion/year just to spy and protect our economic interests? My guess is that a couple bases and a couple thousand men could do the job just fine.

In a time when we must choose between cutting healthcare and education, maybe its time to cut a few dozen excess bases in Pacific. We already spend as much money on our military as the rest of the world combined, and I really doubt the loss of a few bases and soldiers in South Korea will lessen our economic or military security. North Korea can't even effectively threaten South Korea, and is really no threat at all to American soil.


Buffett Rule Defeated

Today Republicans defeated a Democrat-backed piece of legislation that required millionaires (literally, people making more than a million dollars/year) to pay a minimum income tax of 30%, which is just about the national average for middle class tax payers.

The legislation came after millionaire Warren Buffett announced that his tax rate was lower than his secretary, and that he and other millionaires should pay at least as much as the middle class Americans who pay close to 30%. Tens of thousands of wealthy Americans are paying a lower percent of their income to taxes than their middle class neighbors. This is possible because it is easy to mix and match capital gains and avoid taxes, legally. The more money you have the more you can mix and match.

Apparently, Republicans are very comfortable slashing Medicare (see the recent budget they pushed through the House) and most recently eminent GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney announced his plans to combine or totally dissolve federal departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development. The justification for these rash measures is that we are spending too much and have massive debt. If that is the argument, then why not let the mega rich pay the same 30% that most middle class people pay? Why are we burdening the middle class with more taxes so the wealthy can pay less?

Republicans counter that taxes taken from individuals represent less money spent in the economy. They say that increasing any tax would stifle the economy. "Let the rich avoid taxes so we can fuel the economy!" This is the crux of trickle down economics.

The great irony is that even Reagan, the imagined champion of trickle down economics and all things conservative shared the liberals exact same opinion on this issue. Years ago he stomped the nation with a complaint similar to Warren Buffett. Reagan demanded change so that the super-wealthy did not pay a lower percent of their taxes than the middle class. If you don't believe me, check out this well cut video comparing Obama and Reagan's nearly identical please for legislation requiring millionaires to pay equal or more than the middle classes:


So if Reagan and Obama are on the same page, why can't the bill pass? Because politics today is more about who's side you are on than what you believe in. No self-respecting Republican will vote for anything a Democrat suggests. Such a move would be political suicide. Are Democrats any different? I don't know. But what we do know is that in this climate every politician is looking out for themselves and America comes last. If you don't like it, call your local representative and complain, and then maybe for fear of losing their job they will do what is right.



Republicans argue that they are not simply protecting rich people but rather saving

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Happy Easter

We went to the mall this week and Abby insisted on seeing the Easter bunny. We of course waited over an hour and Lily was done by the time we got up there. I did not intend to buy any pictures because they were ridiculously expensive, but the photographer thought the girls were so cute and ended up giving me a couple free pictures--how nice! I thought I would include them on the blog so that everyone can enjoy them.
Just to add to the fun--here are Abby's four year old pictures!

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Relief Society Birthday Dinner Table

On March 20th my Ward celebrated the birthday of the Relief Society. It was a great party and many people attended. Each table was decorated to describe a month of the year and my friend Cindy Rasmussen asked me if I would decorate the October table. I of course said yes! Each sister sat at the table of their birth month which provided opportunities for people to interact that might not have normally. What a good idea. The food was great and company was even better!
See the chocolate eye balls? I found that I still had some from Halloween!

Monday, April 2, 2012

St. Patrick's Day

We arrived back from Arizona on Wednesday evening and the next morning found us at dance and gymnastics. Abby showed off her new skirt made by Natalie and everyone loved it.
Lily fell asleep in her saucer thing. I had to capture it.
St. Patrick's Day was a lot of fun and began with some yummy green pancakes. The girls had matching cute shirts so naturally I had to take some pictures before our Ward party. The party was entitled, "Fish and Feathers" and the food was the best I've ever eaten at a Ward Party.
Here are the treats I made and took to the party.
They were gone by the time I got to them and I was only about the 15th person in line!

Arizona in March

Arizona is so nice in March! The weather was gorgeous and we really enjoyed seeing friends. The girls and I left on March 11th and had to return on March 14th to make it back for Abby's dance and gymnastics classes.
Natalie and the girls after our arrival on Sunday, the 11th.
Monday night we got to see our friends, Carric and Jenny Smolnik. Abby loved playing with them in the cardboard house the Taysom's had in their front room. We sure miss the Smolnik's.
Tuesday we stopped over at our friends the Jackson's for lunch. I use to teach Hannah and Cami piano lessons and we grew to love them so much.
We also stopped over to see one of the voice teachers I played the piano for. David Britton is the most wonderful man and I hope we will always stay in contact.
We try to get frozen yogurt each time we go to Arizona and this time was no exception!
Natalie made Abby a skirt for dance class for Abby's birthday!
Then it was time to drive home. Good times seem to end too quickly.



Sunday, April 1, 2012

March Friends and Fun

In March we discovered preschool story time at the local library. Quite a few kids usually attend and there is always a craft after. Sometimes Abby gets to go to the video section and check out a new movie to watch for the week. She often picks something to do with Mickey Mouse. One week she even chose a whole collection of Pluto videos that included even classic old Pluto cartoons. She loved it!
Our friends the Weir's moved in and out of our lives way too fast. We loved hanging out with them but they too soon moved away. One night their girls, Mara and Lulu came over and played and watched a movie (with popcorn and everything). We miss you guys!
Matt plays basketball with the faculty at Bakersfield College on Fridays and so we decided to surprise him one day. Abby really enjoyed running around the gym.
We've been wanting to improve the look of the front yard, so we ventured over to Wal-Mart and bought some new flowers. Then we came home and Abby had so much fun helping to plant the flowers with her new Lightning McQueen gloves.
The house is an ever changing and improving being!