Year: 2014

You can read his speech to Friday’s winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, of course, but then you miss the half the humor and most of the warmth.  Far better, if you can, to just settle back in a comfortable chair and watch.

I’m posting it early — this is Monday’s column — so you have something to do today.  It’s WAY too cold to go out.

(And, yes, the first  couple of minute of pleasantries will not rivet you . . . but by the time he’s heckled for his plans for nuclear war with Russia you should be pretty well engaged.  And by the time he’s finished . . . well, I hope you might be fired up.  Let me know your thoughts.)

#

Corrections from yesterday:

VHS VS BETA

Daniel: “You write, ‘Then again, to the average consumer, VHS and SONY’s Betamax did roughly the same thing.’ Not even remotely true!  At intro in 1975 through the early 1980’s, Betamax only permitted a single hour of recording.  VHS debuted in 1976 allowing two hours of recording.  True enough that video quality was nominally better with Betamax which had 250 scan lines vs 240 for VHS, but customers were also swayed by the fact that a Betamax deck started at $1000 vs hundreds less for a VHS deck.”

☞ I’d forgotten that.  So the better deal for the customer did prevail.  Good!  Based on what we know, WheelTug will be the better deal for the customer:  dramatically lighter and simpler to install (or remove) than its competition; zero cost up front.  Which may be why WheelTug has 14 signed customers and the competition, so far, none.

HENRY FORD

Sid and Diane: “I hate reading anything good about this guy.  Click here.”

☞ The link is to a story in Forbes explaining why Ford really paid his workers so well.  

Even so (as the President noted Friday), rising wages are good for business. They strengthen the purchasing power of the middle class and are part of the virtuous cycle — more purchasing equals more demand equals the need to hire more people who then are themselves able to purchase more . . . all leading to more profits available to reinvest in R&D and new plant and to more tax revenue available to fund the things we need to do collectively (education / infrastructure / police-fire-sanitation / safety net) . . . and, if it doesn’t get out of balance — as it did as Reagan/Bush/Bush skewed things so dramatically in favor of the very rich — up and up it grows.  I give you, yet again, the Nick Hanauer clip.  And that quote from 1896:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them. — William Jennings Bryan, 1896

Watch the President!

I don’t always read my quote of the day — how do they even get up there?  It’s magic!  But did you see yesterday’s?

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them. — William Jennings Bryan, 1896

Isn’t it amazing how long we’ve known this?  And that so many of “the masses” have somehow been persuaded otherwise?

Yet if you look back, the economy and the stock market both do better under Democratic administrations than under Republican — the stock market rather astoundingly so.  I don’t know whether Henry Ford was a Democrat or a Republican, just that he was a raging anti-Semite (see: The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem), but when it came to his idea of paying his workers more than the minimum he could have gotten away with, so they could afford to buy the cars they were making, he was right.  As is Nick Hanauer a century later, in that must-see, must-share clip I keep linking to.

MY BROTHER’S KEEPER

Did you get to watch the President’s speech yesterday?  Imagine how much better our country would be if a much higher proportion of young black boys got the support and opportunities they needed to grow up to lead wonderful, productive, successful lives.

The transcript.

GAWKER

When was the last time you read a Playboy interview?  But here is one, of Gawker’s Nick Denton, that speaks to the future of media and a whole lot more that – while I don’t agree with all of it — strikes me as kind of brilliant.

And it’s long, which is good, because I haven’t found the time to write anything myself.  So — as the star of the Howdy Doody show said when he thought the mike was off (I think it was Howdy Doody, but who knows? I was five . . . or wait — was it Kap’n Kangaroo? that was after my time, but I think maybe that was it) — “that oughta hold the little bastards.”  And so ended his career.

Or — well look at this! — not!  (Thank you, Snopes.)

Did it?

And while we’re at it . . .

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SONY, ANYWAY?

Prasanth Manthena: “I have to say as a guy who’s made some money (at least in terms of stock value) on Wheeltug and who’s added shares thru the years, this is the first time I’ve actually been concerned about the company in a long time.  The product seems to be clearly superior than the other proposed solutions.  Products though can be superior and still be knocked off because they don’t actually play on a level playing field: regulatory issues, other companies using monopoly/size to collude.  Never really worried about the EGTS before, but if they can keep Wheeltug becoming certified then the game is over obviously.  I don’t plan on selling shares but may hold off on buying on dips or good news as I consistently done in the past.  I wonder if the company has some other things up it’s sleeve:  (1) They have many airline partners: some of those partners should be more than willing to share the engineering data and push the FAA.  Not only will they get the advantages to Wheeltug but I’m sure a quid pro qua can be established so those partners who help will be guaranteed the first operational WheelTugs.  Timing is everything.  (2) Selling the company at a nice markup: if Airbus isn’t interested what about Boeing?  If all new non-jumbo Boeings come with WheelTug, that I imagine is a huge advantage to have when you are selling planes.  Plus for Boeing they have a bird in hand as Wheeltug appears to work while we still don’t what will happen with EGTS.  (3) Lawyer angle: anti-trust or patent lawsuits come to mind. . . . Interesting news, overall.”

Alvin Bluthman: “History shows that money and power applied to suppressing new (better) technology or preventing the opening of new markets frequently does succeed. Look at Carterphone in the 1970s.  Or Betamax vs. VHS.”

☞ True.  Then again, to the average consumer, VHS and SONY’s Betamax did roughly the same thing.

If VHS had required a few days to set up and/or switching tapes for shows over two hours — or some other fairly minor but quite evident practical disadvantage — they would have been ALMOST the same – but would VHS have won?

WheelTug can apparently be installed overnight – and removed just as easily.  EGTS may require taking the aircraft out of service a good deal longer.  And it weighs hundreds of pounds more — on every flight, day in and day out.  A passenger won’t care; but an airline will: and airlines are the customers.

And airlines may have more influence on Boeing and Airbus (and the FAA) than Honeywell and Safran.  Airlines are their customers.

So it may not be the same as VHS and Betamax.

Shares of WheelTug grandparent Borealis closed yesterday at $15, valuing the entire company at $75 million.  I know many of you think I’m being crazy — if so, only with money I can truly afford to lose — but it seems to me the technologies this company is developing, of which WheelTug is light years ahead of the others — could conceivably be worth billions.  Each billion equals $200 a share.

Have you ever had more fun?

FOR SKIERS WHO SMOKE

Here.

RUBBER

My friend Mark Plotkin is afraid of nothing (I am afraid of everything), having, for example, paddled down the Amazon from its freezing mountainous headwaters, through leeches, piranhas, crocodiles, electric eels, candiru (the one that inflicts an agonizing death if you pee in its pool), snakes, more snakes, yet more snakes, poison frogs, heat, sweltering heat, bugs, and much else all the way to the ocean. He and his Amazon Conservation Team may have helped save  more rain forest than any man living, but he blogs here, yesterday, only of rubber — and NASCAR and the NBA and how it all comes back to the rain forest.  (Did you know  “rubber” got so named in 1770 when Joseph Priestly, of oxygen fame, noticed how well it erased — rubbed out — pencil scratchings?)

TWO MOMS, BETTER KIDS

I’m a huge “dad” fan and an even huger fan of traditional families.  My mom and dad married young and remained completely in love until death did them part, complete with the traditional two kids, one straight, one gay, a collie, and a station wagon.  But the study summarized here suggests that having two moms and no dad may produce kids with even more self-esteem and even fewer discipline problems.

Obviously, this is no knock on traditional families — just worth mentioning to those who fear harm will come to kids raised by same-sex parents.

(Like Ugandans, whose president just signed a law mandating life in prison for gays and lesbians; seven years for sympathizers.  Sign here.)

BOREALIS

Jim:  “Re yesterday’s post, consider the apparent extreme sketchiness of BOREF:  They’re based in GIBRALTAR, for god’s sake!  They’re not even trying not to seem sketchy!   2. The extremely sketchy corporate nesting doll structure (investors take on blind faith that any profits will trickle up to BOREF).   3. The sketchy CEO falsely stating that Safran-Honeywell interferes with brake cooling.   4. The thinly-veiled repugnance in the Airbus statement about WheelTug.    The set-up’s sketchy. The reaction’s been sketchy. The time frame’s been sketchy. The CEO acts sketchily.  Add that to all of Chris Brown’s (smart) points, and I can’t understand why you’re in this one. It seems like precisely the sort of thing the author or your book would advise against!  (But best of luck with it!)”

☞ And yet WheelTug works – you can watch it on video – and fourteen airlines including El Al, KLM, and Alitalia have signed on – and industry icon Bob Crandall, who used to run American Airlines, has allowed his name to be used publicly – and Parker Hannifin and a whole lot of others have signed on as partners . . . and I’m guessing all have looked at this more closely than Jim and none of them is particularly sketchy . . . so why does Jim assume there’s no chance the lighter, better, patented system will succeed?  Or that Honeywell-Safran’s view of the brake heat problem trumps that of WheelTug’s view (or the view of that other fellow quoted in the article, identified as “chief technical manager of IBA Group, a U.K.-based aviation technical services firm”)?

So, yes, maybe VHS will beat Betamax – but does it always work that way?  Is that why Apple disappeared, rolled over, despite its more elegant design, by IBM?  Why winglets were never ultimately adopted?

Those who believe WheelTug’s chance of success has become material see what appears to be a grossly undervalued speculation — to be made only with money we can truly afford to lose.

Newcomers to this page: there is a crazy company I’ve been writing about for 14 years, which seems to be a little less crazy than it once did, and when there’s a new development — having over the years bought an insane number of shares — I am like a dog who hears the dull thud of the spoon against the dinner pail.  I drop everything (I had planned to write about the Affordable Care Act today) and run back to the house.

And so, dear fellow shareholders, skeptics, and air travelers everywhere  . . .

There’s a story in the current Aerospace America (“Runway Taxiing Goes Green”) that’s not linkable but says (emphasis added):

What could be one of aviation’s biggest environmental advances in 30 years now appears to be a matter of “when” rather than “if.” Two companies report they are closing in on electric technologies that would let planes taxi between airport terminals and runway holding areas without using their engines.

One of these firms is a small startup called WheelTug; the other, known as EGTS, is a collaboration by three manufacturing giants. The two companies are pursuing very different technical and business strategies, and WheelTug reckons that its technology could be ready to enter service within two years.

. . . [there would be fuel savings] [though the writer reports that WheelTug operates off batteries, when in fact it draws power from the plane’s “auxiliary power a unit,” which itself runs on jet fuel] . . .

Turnaround times between flights also would be reduced. Planes would not have to wait for tugs, or to be coupled to them and then uncoupled. Moreover, a plane’s wheel-mounted electric motors would allow it to turn sideways safely in congested ramp areas without causing any jet-blast damage.

This ability—a concept WheelTug has trademarked as the “Twist”— could produce the greatest cost saving of all, says Cox. It could allow planes to disembark and board passengers at two adjacent gates simultaneously, slashing turnaround times by a third.

This could create enough extra utilization time in the day for a shorthaul aircraft to operate an additional, revenue-producing sector. Taxiing on battery power generated by the auxiliary power unit would also be much quieter than taxiing even on one engine. Aiming at single-aisle

. . .

Although WheelTug doesn’t offer system redundancy, it’s much simpler and lighter than the EGTS system, which might make it easier to earn airworthiness certifications from the FAA or other authorities around the world. WheelTug uses a nose-landing-gearmounted electric motor to drive the nosewheel, to taxi and to turn the aircraft. One criticism, from some aircraft analysts and from competitor EGTS, is that its nosewheel location sometimes makes it unable to provide enough traction to push back or taxi a plane when the weather is snowy or icy.

Cox’s answer to this is that WheelTug’s business model is not to sell the system to airlines, but merely to charge them service fees representing a fraction of the actual savings that customers realize operationally from using it. Only WheelTug would be out of money if bad weather didn’t permit its use. To date, WheelTug has garnered commitments from 13 airlines to fit 731 single-aisle planes, mostly Boeing 737s. One, Icelandair, intends to use the system on its future Boeing 737 Max jets, but this is a separate certification challenge, because the noselanding gear of tomorrow’s 737 Max is different from that of today’s 737NGs.

As a small company, WheelTug’s biggest headache could be that Airbus and Boeing do not sell the design-engineering data for their aircraft cheaply, if at all. This makes it extremely difficult for third parties to perform a full FAA—or equivalent— certification process for aircraft major structural modifications. Instead they usually seek a simpler certification method involving issuance of a supplemental type certificate, which is applicable only to minor structural modifications.

This has been a thorny problem for WheelTug. Cox says the planned late-2014 certification date has slipped to “well into 2015,” and that WheelTug has recently simplified its system significantly, mainly to lighten it. WheelTug has done so partly in the hope it can obtain a supplemental type certificate for the system and so avoid the need to buy manufacturers’ engineering data for certification. The system is now called V1 and is operated by a pilot rather than ground staff as originally planned. V1’s maximum taxi speed is lower than that of the original version.

Cox says the company might still need to buy manufacturer engineering data to achieve certification. But while WheelTug has not yet chosen the aircraft type on which it will first certify the system—the choice depends on having a customer aircraft available for long enough to do so—it has chosen to certify V1 through the FAA rather than through EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agencies.

This is because “EASA relies on Airbus,” Cox says. Since Airbus is now allied to EGTS and the A320 family is under the airworthiness oversight of EASA, it appears likely WheelTug will look to certificate V1 first on a Boeing 737. Once the system receives certification for one aircraft type, getting it for other types should be relatively simple.

The technical and certification challenges for EGTS will be harsher than those for WheelTug, according to Paul Brooker, chief technical manager of IBA Group, a U.K.-based aviation technical services firm. Designed for the A320 family and already demonstrated experimentally, EGTS is a dual system that uses an electric motor mounted on a wheel on each main landing gear unit. Though it offers system redundancy, EGTS is much heavier than V1 and requires air cooling. In addition, its motors are located close to each main landing gear unit’s brakes.

EGTS will operate in “an extremely hostile environment,” says Brooker. Its motors will be exposed to potential hydraulic leaks, to sizable landing stresses, and—because of the system’s proximity to the plane’s carbon brakes—to extremely high temperatures and to brake dust. Brooker thinks EGTS may be more likely than WheelTug to experience technical problems in routine operation, particularly after several months in service.

That said, the size, technological expertise and market clout of the EGTS partners should help get their system through EASA certification— this will probably happen later than WheelTug’s certification—and into sales contention. The EGTS partners are “already flooding the market” with their sales efforts, says Brooker. He reckons both systems have considerable market potential and should be particularly attractive to airlines serving remote, ill-equipped airports.

And here’s another story, just out, that suggests the state of play on WheelTug.

I’m sorry to insert the whole thing — it’s not on-line and I haven’t learned how to link to a .pdf.

The bad news — which of course we’ve known — is that Boeing and Airbus are still not on board.  (Also, that Honeywell/Safran say that their system will not impede brake cooling.)

The good news is that, as one reads articles like the ones above and below, e-taxi seems inevitable.

Also, our system appears to be several hundred pounds lighter than theirs; ours can be installed (and uninstalled) in a day and requires zero financial commitment from the airlines; we’ve signed 14 airlines to their zero; and we have patents up the wazoo, which might even matter someday.  (Ever hear of Elisha Gray?  No?  Well, that’s the point.)

The title of the article — “WheelTug Is Not For Turning” — is a bit odd when you consider that a key feature of the system is its ability to turn the plane parallel to the gate, instead of nose in, for boarding and deplaning from both front and rear simultaneously.  The phrase plays off one of Margaret Thatcher’s most famous pronouncements — “the lady’s not for turning” — as she stayed the course of her painful economic plan (that arguably led to the rescue of the British economy).  I.e. (I guess): WheelTug plows ahead, undaunted.

Have a great day.

Start with this:

. . . the New Jersey governor was whisked into . . . a fund-raiser at a Palm Beach home owned by the heir to a sugar fortune.

Inside, Mr. Christie found what must pass, at this difficult moment, as an oasis for him: a group of Ferrari and Jaguar-driving Florida Republicans for whom traffic in New Jersey is a distant thought.

Getting into his Bentley after the fund-raiser, one guest, Geoffrey Leigh, called the controversy over the lane closures “little flies on the wall, quite frankly.”

Little flies.

(One is reminded somehow of Leona Helmsley‘s, “only the little people pay taxes.”)

Next, consider this guy’s reaction to the news that the 85 richest humans on Earth have wealth equal to that of the 3.5 billion least richest:

It’s fantastic!

It’s fantastic, he says, because it helps motivate those at the bottom.  It’s a one-minute clip, worth watching not least for the stunned reaction of his co-host.

I doubt it reflects the views of most Republican voters, but Republican elected officials, perhaps out of fear of billionaire-backed primary challenges, believe we should cut the estate tax rate on billionheirs to zero . . . tax income from wealth less heavily than income from work . . . if at all . . . and grind down income for work wherever possible by killing unions and holding down the minimum wage — all the while cutting food stamps, cutting off the long-term unemployed from further support (which has the added “benefit” of adding even more desperate people to the labor pool to grind down wages even further), and opposing the investments in infrastructure that would boost the demand for labor.* 

It is more than selfish; it is self-defeating.  Henry Ford knew he’d get richer if workers earned enough to afford to buy his cars.  It’s a thriving middle class — not a desperate, squeezed, shrinking one — that produces the virtuous cycle that enriches the best off along with everyone else (and keeps the country strong).  See, as always, that seminal Nick Hanauer clip.  (Now at 999,780 viewers — you could be the millionth!)

*To the extent it’s true, as the Congressional Budget Office estimates, that hiking the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would boost 17 million workers’ income but cost 500,000 jobs — and I like to think the added oomph to consumer demand might in fact neutralize that job loss — the answer is not to keep wages low, it’s to invest in infrastructure . . . which would add more than a million jobs, and which we badly need to do anyway.

#

That would be plenty for now, but it’s Friday.  So if you want a little weekend reading (or own any SIGA) . . .

KAPPA BETA PHI

It’s a secret Wall Street fraternity founded in 1929 — pre-October! — that few, including me, had ever heard of before it came to public attention in this week’s New York Magazine.  (Wikipedia already had it nailed, but who knew to look? or to crash their annual dinner?)  It’s worth a read, not because these are bad folks — most of them are very good folks in most ways, I’m sure.  But perhaps some of them are just a tad skewed in their world view?

SIGA

My bad: I had meant to post this a month ago, right after this.  But it still seems relevant, so in case you own shares:

Glenn:  “I don’t want to get in a back & forth argument about SIGA on your website.  If a company is running out of cash and shuts down its R & D, then it’s time to run for the hills.  But if a company has a fantastic balance sheet and they shut down their R & D plus they have a drug which needs a major partner to really be successful, they are preparing to have an efficiently run company that is sold for top dollar!  Why have an income statement that shows significant R & D expenses for potential future drugs that aren’t anywhere near being able to be marketed? SIGA has a huge amount of money for a small company (market cap around $200 million) with a lot more money coming from their current BARDA contract.  I do believe they are in the process of preparing to be sold.  However I think any company buying them is going to wait to see how they come out in the law suit (this will significantly affect the buyout price).  Also if SIGA does have a buyer lined up, they don’t want to upset Judge Parsons any more than they have to in announcing a huge deal.  I don’t have any insight into our government’s procurement process.   However I know that even if there were any progress as to potential additional orders from BARDA, SIGA management wouldn’t be talking about it.  . . . As far as their dengue fever opportunity, I agree it’s a long way off; but if they partner with a larger company to do the drug, it has huge potential.  I just read about another company that’s going to launch a dengue fever drug later this year.  However it is only effective against 3 out of the 4 strands of dengue fever.  My understanding is that SIGA initially believes they have a potential drug that is effective on all 4.  Have a great day!”

☞ At the very least, it will be fun to see how this turns out.  At the very best, we’ll make a fat return on money we could truly afford to lose.

FROM ESSEN

If you like movies or old people — or just want your heart warmed on a cold February morning — click here.

LANDING GEAR

As you know, WheelTug has designed its 5-inch-wide electric motor to be housed in the nose wheel of its planes (and has orders from 13 or 14 airlines to lease 785 systems, if it should gain FAA approval), while competitor Honeywell/Safran (with no orders as yet) proposes to put its motors in the main landing gear, snuggled in with the super-hot, mission critical brakes.  While either system is going to have to be really rugged, this video suggests that — in the ruggedness department — Honeywell/Safran faces a higher bar.

FLY EL AL

In cue for WheelTug, should the day ever come, their airplanes all already incorporate important state of the art technology.  Behold.  (Warning: this is a little unnerving.)

15 YEAR OLD SEES LITTLE HOPE

Here is the sad tale of Alex Zaragoza, a Peoria, Illinois teen “quickly running out of chances to be the first openly gay anything.”  It’s funny — satire from The Onion — but in its way, wonderfully true.

HOW DO THEY *MAKE* THESE ADS?

I mean, do the Norwegians even have the budget for this?  Good for them!  Ninety seconds.  (Thanks, Mike.)

HOW THEY DO THAT MAGIC?

Marty Rosen:  “Et tu, Andy?  You’ve transformed me from a political middle-of-the-roader into a left-leaning middle-of-the-roader — but I want to chastise you (politely) for encouraging the exposure of magic secrets.  I am a magician — though it’s not my real job* — and I’m speculating that your readership has a greater proportion of magic hobbyists than is found in the general population.  Regardless, as you imply, it is wrong to reveal magical deceptions.  You excuse your behavior by noting that we all have free will, so no one has to watch the video you linked to.  Of course, that is true.  But would you make it easier for the public to shoot up with heroin by advertising sites that permit easy access?  (By doing so, you would not be requiring anyone to do drugs.)  Or to eliminate the distinction for illegal as opposed to immoral activity, would you publicize the web sites that facilitate marital infidelity?  (Adultery is not illegal, and everyone who has a significant other has the free will to decide whether to be loyal.)  . . . In either case, you would be making it easier to do something that is generally accepted as wrong, and I would argue that you should not do so.  In any of these cases, it is true that a determined individual can find a source for heroin, can easily locate avenues for marital cheating, and can surf the web himself to discover magic secrets.  But one still doesn’t have to encourage the activity by making it easier to do so.  . . . There is great magic on the web that does not provide disclosure.  You linked to one such site.  There are even several that have made it as TED talks (I personally like this one with Lennart Green. . . . Better yet, to foster an appreciation of magic, there’s nothing better than seeing it live (as long as it’s good magic, and not the kind that everyone’s uncle does).  The next time you’re in L.A., visit the best magic club in the world, the Magic Castle.  It’s a private club, so you need a connection to get in, but if you’re interested, let me know, and I’ll send you a guest pass.  Or I’ll take you there in person if you have any interest.”

* Q: What’s the difference between a magician and a pizza?
A:  A pizza feeds a family of four.

You are NOT entitled to a column on holidays (check the “Terms and Conditions”), so — with the market closed yesterday — what you got doesn’t count.   Which means that today’s post is entirely new, even though I just added power laces and a photo.

BOREALIS

Here’s  another view of the 737 damaged at BWI Sunday:

Tugs (and giant taxi-bots) are really not the best way to move planes around the gate area.  A 5-inch-wide motor inside the nose wheel — far from the mission-critical brakes in the main landing gear — is.

POWER LACES

No, really!  (Maybe.)  Here.  As Michael J. Fox says in the clip: “cool!”

FOOD SCRAPS: FIRST WORMS, NOW CHICKENS

Peter Jackson:  “I enjoyed Friday’s notes on food waste.   Thought I’d share what I do with my 200 pounds of rinds and egg shells: I feed it to my chickens. Backyard chickens are becoming popular everywhere (even in Brooklyn, I’ve read!).  Where I live, maintaining compost through the winter is a challenge because it freezes. Feeding it to the chickens has a dual benefit: 1) it turns food waste in to eggs, which I eat and 2) it turns the food waste in to chicken waste, which is even better fertilizer for the garden in the summer. And, if I may be slightly icky, frozen chicken poop is better than frozen melon rinds in the compost pile all winter.  Also: we just started selling the eggs to friends. We make $36 a week on the surplus eggs. Know what we do with it? We invest it. Between that and the garden, our food costs have dropped by a couple hundred a month in the summer.  And I’m no country hick! I grew up in DC and make software for a living!”

A FUN FACT ABOUT RONALD REAGAN

In his eight years as President — veto power and all — Ronald Reagan added more to the National Debt than all previous presidents combined.  He was not forced to do it to pull the country out of a depression.  He was not forced to do it to fight a world war.  Yet the iconic conservative did it anyway.

Keep that in mind when you hear, as we did from Jim DeMint on “Face the Nation” Sunday, that President Obama may by the time he leaves office do the same thing.

(Though only if you include the $1.5 trillion 2009 debt he inherited from George W. Bush for the fiscal year that began even before he was elected.  And only if you include the fact that, actually, with the deficit falling so fast, he probably won’t.  And he did have a depression to avert; and two Republican wars to inherit, not just an invasion of Granada.)

The Debt as a proportion of GDP was gradually worked down from 121% in 1946 to 30% the year Reagan/Bush took and sent it soaring back up . . . until the Democrat, Bill Clinton turned that around and got the ratio dropping again . . . until the Republican, Bush 43, turned it back around to soaring again . . . until the Democrat, Barack Obama, turned it back around to falling once more.

Just sayin’.

(President Reagan, the iconic conservative, also agreed to tax wealth — dividends and capital gains — just as heavily as work.  To today’s Republican Party, that is anathema.)