A random sampling of comments from the last few days:
"Obama complains of the price of arugula and Palin goes out and shoots her supper."
"Reporter: Mr. McCain, how do you respond to charges that Palin has no experience?
McCain: If Obama had as much experience as Ms. Palin, he'd be ready for the VP slot, too."
"Team Obama fights back with a new campaign pitch: 'Inexperience belongs at the TOP of the ticket!'"
From a commenter (PatMac) on Hot Air: “ Now this would make a great ad - McCain looking into the camera and talking about people criticizing Palin for her lack of experience. McCain could then do a quick synopsis of her experience (Mayor, governor, business owner, reformer, etc.) and then admit the only thing lacking is community organizer.”
"Perhaps, as John McCain pondered his vice-presidential selection, he recalled the advice of Margaret Thatcher: 'In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.'”
From Jim Treacher: "The biggest difference, as I see it, between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama is that 'one of them is little more than an elegant, attractive, dare I say sexy piece of eye candy. The other one kills her own food.'”
And from blogger Mark Swanson: “I think we can all agree that Palin's pick of an experienced statesman like John McCain to head her ticket shows that she is much better prepared to be VP than Biden who is trying to thrust an unqualified youngster who was a do-nothing state legislator before being elected to the Senate where he put in a few months of attendance before going AWOL to run for president.”
Monday, September 01, 2008
WHY NOT SARAH PALIN FOR VEEP?
All on the Left, and some few on the Right, are a-twitter about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience, being only a “single heartbeat” away from the presidency. I’m of a different mind.
I live just outside the Washington DC beltway, and work inside the beltway. Foreign policy experts are a dime a dozen here; foreign policy experts with diametrically opposed opinions are two for a quarter on any street corner.
When I go to the polls to vote, I look for three things: conviction, courage, and common sense.
Conviction – a coherent moral and ethical philosophy that captures his or her world view.
Courage – the ability to stand up and speak out for his or her convictions.
Common sense – the ability to weigh competing opinions enroute to a decision; more succintly, a finely-tuned BS detector.
From what I’ve read so far, Gov. Palin has all three.
Experience is vastly overrated. As I see it, three or four years of increasingly responsible experience is a bit more valuable that one year of experience repeated 20 times.
I live just outside the Washington DC beltway, and work inside the beltway. Foreign policy experts are a dime a dozen here; foreign policy experts with diametrically opposed opinions are two for a quarter on any street corner.
When I go to the polls to vote, I look for three things: conviction, courage, and common sense.
Conviction – a coherent moral and ethical philosophy that captures his or her world view.
Courage – the ability to stand up and speak out for his or her convictions.
Common sense – the ability to weigh competing opinions enroute to a decision; more succintly, a finely-tuned BS detector.
From what I’ve read so far, Gov. Palin has all three.
Experience is vastly overrated. As I see it, three or four years of increasingly responsible experience is a bit more valuable that one year of experience repeated 20 times.
FAIR TAX/EMBEDDED TAX/VALUE-ADDED TAX
After reading both the Fair Tax books, I’ve never quite understood how the “embedded taxes” in the purchase price of an item would be replaced by the Fair Tax.
Now, I don’t dispute that there are embedded taxes in every purchase I make. Anyone with even a modest amount of common sense understands that all taxes - corporate income taxes, capital gains taxes, employer social security taxes, and so on - are eventually paid by the consumer.
But to suggest that these embedded taxes will magically go away with the Fair Tax is disingenuous at best. They will be reduced, to be sure, but go away? Nonsense.
A small example is in order. Consider a consultant, an occupation for which I have some small ambition post-retirement. As a consultant, I charge my customer a fee, say $100/hour, which includes the 23% Fair Tax. Thus I take home for my labor and expertise $77, right?
Not so. For I have to reduce my income by my overhead expenses, the cost of electricity, the cost of the computer, pencils, paper, internet access, etc., ad nauseum, all of which I’ve had to pay the Fair Tax on. Those costs are embedded in the fee I charge my customers.
Large businesses and other commercial entities that buy in bulk might not pay the Fair Tax on these business-related purchases, knowing that the tax will be collected on the final product offered for sale, but for a small business/independent contractor who buys in small quantities from the local office supply store, I doubt that such a distinction is possible.
So some level of embedded tax is inevitable.
[UPDATE 9/6/08] The Nightfly (comment below) notes that “since the fair tax only applies to retail commerce, you won't owe tax on the contract work you do for other businesses.” I agree: intermittent work such as I contemplated in the post would probably be considered temporary employment not subject to the Fair Tax.
He continues: “Whether or not you choose to pay sales taxes on your business supplies, if the difference has no bearing on your fee, then it will be an expense to your customers regardless of whether that part of your fee technically falls into the category of embedded tax or not.” And that was my essential point – that the sales tax I paid is ultimately passed to the consumer, irrespective of whether it’s technically considered an expense or an embedded tax.
This is a minor bump in the road to a Fair Tax. Most embedded taxes will in fact disappear, but it’s foolish to believe that all will.
Now, I don’t dispute that there are embedded taxes in every purchase I make. Anyone with even a modest amount of common sense understands that all taxes - corporate income taxes, capital gains taxes, employer social security taxes, and so on - are eventually paid by the consumer.
But to suggest that these embedded taxes will magically go away with the Fair Tax is disingenuous at best. They will be reduced, to be sure, but go away? Nonsense.
A small example is in order. Consider a consultant, an occupation for which I have some small ambition post-retirement. As a consultant, I charge my customer a fee, say $100/hour, which includes the 23% Fair Tax. Thus I take home for my labor and expertise $77, right?
Not so. For I have to reduce my income by my overhead expenses, the cost of electricity, the cost of the computer, pencils, paper, internet access, etc., ad nauseum, all of which I’ve had to pay the Fair Tax on. Those costs are embedded in the fee I charge my customers.
Large businesses and other commercial entities that buy in bulk might not pay the Fair Tax on these business-related purchases, knowing that the tax will be collected on the final product offered for sale, but for a small business/independent contractor who buys in small quantities from the local office supply store, I doubt that such a distinction is possible.
So some level of embedded tax is inevitable.
[UPDATE 9/6/08] The Nightfly (comment below) notes that “since the fair tax only applies to retail commerce, you won't owe tax on the contract work you do for other businesses.” I agree: intermittent work such as I contemplated in the post would probably be considered temporary employment not subject to the Fair Tax.
He continues: “Whether or not you choose to pay sales taxes on your business supplies, if the difference has no bearing on your fee, then it will be an expense to your customers regardless of whether that part of your fee technically falls into the category of embedded tax or not.” And that was my essential point – that the sales tax I paid is ultimately passed to the consumer, irrespective of whether it’s technically considered an expense or an embedded tax.
This is a minor bump in the road to a Fair Tax. Most embedded taxes will in fact disappear, but it’s foolish to believe that all will.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Monday, August 04, 2008
Sunday, August 03, 2008
FAIR TAX?
After repeated urging, I finally read both of the Boortz / Linder Fair Tax books.
My impression?
It’s an intriguing idea, and in the second book, the authors have done a credible job answering the critics of the first. A couple of minor nits:
A more substantive concern is the calculation of the “embedded tax” – the sum of all taxes levied during the production cycle. No one with a lick of common sense doubts the existence of an embedded tax; ultimately the consumer pays every tax, no matter where it’s levied.
But here’s the rub.
Boortz and Linder estimate the embedded tax as 22% of any good sold; yet they need a 23% Fair Tax embedded in the sale price of all goods and services to bring the Federal government an equivalent amount of income as the current income/FICA/Medicare tax system.
A higher tax rate on a broader range of goods and services to generate equivalent income. That doesn’t pass my “reasonable-ness” test. I won’t argue that the numbers are wrong; I will argue that strict scrutiny is needed.
Boortz and Linder significantly underestimate the complexity of implementing the Fair Tax. A January 1, 20XX transition just ain’t gonna happen. Think of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the millennium bug – and that was a trivial problem compared to Fair Tax implementation. The authors have far too much confidence in capitalism – especially America’s constrained capitalism – to regulate wages and prices during the post-transition. That part of the Fair Tax proposal still needs serious thought.
All that said, however, I’d vote for the Fair Tax – and risk the transition chaos -- for one simple reason: a 23% tax bill, presented clearly on every single sales receipt in America, might be the enabler required to control government spending
My impression?
It’s an intriguing idea, and in the second book, the authors have done a credible job answering the critics of the first. A couple of minor nits:
1) Given the necessity of the “prebate” to make the Fair Tax politically acceptable, the IRS isn’t going away. It’s a lovely idea, but it ain’t gonna happen. Downsize, maybe; go away, no way.
2) Nor are lobbyists going to go the way of the dinosaur. Strategy and focus will change, but for as long as there is a Federal government, there will be a K Street.
A more substantive concern is the calculation of the “embedded tax” – the sum of all taxes levied during the production cycle. No one with a lick of common sense doubts the existence of an embedded tax; ultimately the consumer pays every tax, no matter where it’s levied.
But here’s the rub.
Boortz and Linder estimate the embedded tax as 22% of any good sold; yet they need a 23% Fair Tax embedded in the sale price of all goods and services to bring the Federal government an equivalent amount of income as the current income/FICA/Medicare tax system.
A higher tax rate on a broader range of goods and services to generate equivalent income. That doesn’t pass my “reasonable-ness” test. I won’t argue that the numbers are wrong; I will argue that strict scrutiny is needed.
Boortz and Linder significantly underestimate the complexity of implementing the Fair Tax. A January 1, 20XX transition just ain’t gonna happen. Think of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the millennium bug – and that was a trivial problem compared to Fair Tax implementation. The authors have far too much confidence in capitalism – especially America’s constrained capitalism – to regulate wages and prices during the post-transition. That part of the Fair Tax proposal still needs serious thought.
All that said, however, I’d vote for the Fair Tax – and risk the transition chaos -- for one simple reason: a 23% tax bill, presented clearly on every single sales receipt in America, might be the enabler required to control government spending
SAVING GAS AND DRIVING LESS?
It has been widely reported that Americans are driving less this year than last.
Having just completed a 5,000 mile road trip from Virginia to Florida to Texas and back to Virginia, it seems to me that Americans are driving significantly less. Interstates 95 and 75 to Tampa were dramatically less crowded compared to our previous vacation 18 months ago. Both my wife and I remarked on the lack of congestion, even near the cities. There was so little that we were able to leave the car on cruise control for most of the trip.
On the return through Texas, Arkansas, Tennesee, and Virginia along Interstates 30, 40, and 81, I did a little random sampling: big rigs outnumbered passenger vehicles about 14 to 10 on the intercity stretches. The ratio held at most of the rest stops as well, indicating that most of the long-haul traffic is business trucking. I’m not sure what ratio I was expecting, but 14:10 wasn’t it.
As we closed into the cities (or at least to the loops around the city centers), the ratio did change to something on the order of 2:1 favoring automobiles, but even that was less than I expected (my off-peak commute on I-95 to Washington DC is typically 20-30 to one).
Anecdotally then, Americans aren’t traveling for pleasure; and when they do, they stay close to home.
Having just completed a 5,000 mile road trip from Virginia to Florida to Texas and back to Virginia, it seems to me that Americans are driving significantly less. Interstates 95 and 75 to Tampa were dramatically less crowded compared to our previous vacation 18 months ago. Both my wife and I remarked on the lack of congestion, even near the cities. There was so little that we were able to leave the car on cruise control for most of the trip.
On the return through Texas, Arkansas, Tennesee, and Virginia along Interstates 30, 40, and 81, I did a little random sampling: big rigs outnumbered passenger vehicles about 14 to 10 on the intercity stretches. The ratio held at most of the rest stops as well, indicating that most of the long-haul traffic is business trucking. I’m not sure what ratio I was expecting, but 14:10 wasn’t it.
As we closed into the cities (or at least to the loops around the city centers), the ratio did change to something on the order of 2:1 favoring automobiles, but even that was less than I expected (my off-peak commute on I-95 to Washington DC is typically 20-30 to one).
Anecdotally then, Americans aren’t traveling for pleasure; and when they do, they stay close to home.
VACATION PHOTOS
Entrance to Pelican Alley, a small bar and grill on the intercoastal waterway at Casey Key, near Venice, Florida. It has changed only its name (from Fred and Alice's) since 1967 when I was first introduced to it.
Venice Train Station, Venice, FL. The track will eventually be replaced by a bike path.
Downtown Memphis, TN.
Douglas Lake, near Knoxville, TN.
Venice Train Station, Venice, FL. The track will eventually be replaced by a bike path.
Parasailing at Nokomis Beach on Casey Key.
Downtown Memphis, TN.
Douglas Lake, near Knoxville, TN.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
MORE ON SOCIAL SECURITY
Last November I posted a comment on my expected Social Security income, pointing out that it will be nowhere near the income I would have had I been able to invest the payroll tax money in a 401k-type retirement account. But my earnings put me at the higher end of the wage spectrum, and Social Security payouts are strongly biased toward the low-end wage earner, so I decided to do the identical calculation for a low-end wage earner to see if my results still held.
Consider the case of John Doe. Born January 1, 1941, John started working on January 1, 1957 at age 16 at a minimum-wage job, which he kept for the next 50 years, retiring on January 1, 2007 at the age of 66. John never earned more than the minimum wage.
Using the Social Security PIA (annuity) calculator, John will take home from the Social Security Administration the princely sum of $881/month for the rest of his life. Each year that amount will be adjusted for inflation.
Now consider the case of John’s twin brother, James. James also worked from the age of 16 to 66 at the same minimum-wage job as did John. The difference is that James was allowed to take his and his employer’s FICA (payroll) tax and invest it tax-free in the stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial index, which James faithfully did. On January 1, 2007, James had accumulated $224,468, which distributed on a 30-year payout at 5% interest, will give him a monthly income of $1,158.
Assume that John and James both live their expected lifetimes, which according to the United States Life Tables, 2003 is age 82 (16 years). When he dies, John will leave his heirs nothing. James will leave his heirs $144,531.
Explain to me again why Social Security shouldn’t be privatized. Better yet, explain to John why his identical twin James is taking home 30% more income in retirement.
[A note on methodology. I used the minimum hourly wage and FICA tax rates from 1957 to 2007 to compute John and James withholding taxes. The total (employee plus employer) withholding was $36,632 for each over 50 years. Each had a final (2007) salary of $12,168. John’s social security check represents 87% of his final salary; James’ annuity income represents 114% of his final salary. To estimate James’ heirs inheritance, I used the standard mortality tables which give an average expected lifespan for a 66-year-old male of 16 years. All of the data is easily available on the internet.]
Consider the case of John Doe. Born January 1, 1941, John started working on January 1, 1957 at age 16 at a minimum-wage job, which he kept for the next 50 years, retiring on January 1, 2007 at the age of 66. John never earned more than the minimum wage.
Using the Social Security PIA (annuity) calculator, John will take home from the Social Security Administration the princely sum of $881/month for the rest of his life. Each year that amount will be adjusted for inflation.
Now consider the case of John’s twin brother, James. James also worked from the age of 16 to 66 at the same minimum-wage job as did John. The difference is that James was allowed to take his and his employer’s FICA (payroll) tax and invest it tax-free in the stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial index, which James faithfully did. On January 1, 2007, James had accumulated $224,468, which distributed on a 30-year payout at 5% interest, will give him a monthly income of $1,158.
Assume that John and James both live their expected lifetimes, which according to the United States Life Tables, 2003 is age 82 (16 years). When he dies, John will leave his heirs nothing. James will leave his heirs $144,531.
Explain to me again why Social Security shouldn’t be privatized. Better yet, explain to John why his identical twin James is taking home 30% more income in retirement.
[A note on methodology. I used the minimum hourly wage and FICA tax rates from 1957 to 2007 to compute John and James withholding taxes. The total (employee plus employer) withholding was $36,632 for each over 50 years. Each had a final (2007) salary of $12,168. John’s social security check represents 87% of his final salary; James’ annuity income represents 114% of his final salary. To estimate James’ heirs inheritance, I used the standard mortality tables which give an average expected lifespan for a 66-year-old male of 16 years. All of the data is easily available on the internet.]
TELL ME AGAIN WHY I SHOULD BELIEVE THE MSM
In a thinly disguised editorial in the Style (!) section, Washington Post writer Matthew Mosk attempts to debunk the already discredited “Obama is a Muslim” rumor.
Mosk’s vehicle is a profile of Danielle Allen’s quest to find the origin of the Obama email. Here’s Mosk:
Uh, Matthew, the “Swift boat attacks” were neither false nor rumors; in fact, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens offered $1 million to anyone who could disprove any statement of fact made by the Swift boat veterans. As far as has been reported, he still has the money.
Are these “professional” journalists biased, incompetent, or just plain stupid?
Mosk’s vehicle is a profile of Danielle Allen’s quest to find the origin of the Obama email. Here’s Mosk:
“Allen studies the way voters in a democracy gather their information and act on what they learn. She was familiar, of course, with the false rumors of a secret love child that helped sink McCain’s White House bid in 2000, and the Swift boat attacks that did the same to Democrat John Kerry in 2004.”
Uh, Matthew, the “Swift boat attacks” were neither false nor rumors; in fact, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens offered $1 million to anyone who could disprove any statement of fact made by the Swift boat veterans. As far as has been reported, he still has the money.
Are these “professional” journalists biased, incompetent, or just plain stupid?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
HE’S BAACK ...
Via David Broder: “Sixteen years after he shook up American politics by launching an impromptu campaign for president, Ross Perot is about to dip a toe back into the public debates. And, yes, he's bringing his charts with him to make his point.”
Current polling seems to indicate that less than 1 percent of the voters believe the budget deficit one of the major problems facing the country. Perot disagrees. He’s created a website turning basic economic data into 35 well-made charts explaining how grim the long-term budget picture really is.
I’m still mulling over the data, but it’s clear that the 800-pound gorilla in the room is entitlement spending – Social Security and Medicare. Even my favorite hate, congressional pork, is a chimpanzee by comparison.
If you plan to vote in the upcoming Presidential elections, Perot’s “challenges” charts are a must-read.
Current polling seems to indicate that less than 1 percent of the voters believe the budget deficit one of the major problems facing the country. Perot disagrees. He’s created a website turning basic economic data into 35 well-made charts explaining how grim the long-term budget picture really is.
I’m still mulling over the data, but it’s clear that the 800-pound gorilla in the room is entitlement spending – Social Security and Medicare. Even my favorite hate, congressional pork, is a chimpanzee by comparison.
If you plan to vote in the upcoming Presidential elections, Perot’s “challenges” charts are a must-read.
OBAMA - A POST TURTLE?
Over at Don Surber’s place, commenter Harrison has an amusing observation [about Obama]:
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
“The old rancher said, “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.”
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain.
“You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there to begin with.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
THE SINGULARITY
In my web-wanderings, I’ve noticed repeated references to the “Singularity.” In a rare burst of interest, I looked it up. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:
My suspicion is that machine intelligence will soon surpass human intelligence, but not because machine intelligence is improving.
The technological singularity is a hypothesised point in the future variously characterized by the technological creation of self-improving intelligence, unprecedentedly rapid technological progress, or some combination of the two.
Statistician I. J. Good first wrote of an "intelligence explosion", suggesting that if machines could even slightly surpass human intellect, they could improve their own designs in ways unseen by their designers, and thus recursively augment themselves into far greater intelligences. Vernor Vinge later called this event "the Singularity" as an analogy between the breakdown of modern physics near a gravitational singularity and the drastic change in society he argues would occur following an intelligence explosion.
My suspicion is that machine intelligence will soon surpass human intelligence, but not because machine intelligence is improving.
OBAMA'S QUALIFICATIONS
Barack Obama's qualifications for the presidency:
And no, I don't see any either.
[Thanks to Protein Wisdom and Instapundit for the idea.]
And no, I don't see any either.
[Thanks to Protein Wisdom and Instapundit for the idea.]
Sunday, June 15, 2008
ENGINEERS HAVE HAIRY EARS
I've heard the phrase many times since my graduation as an electrical engineer back in 1968. I'd always thought that it was from Ogden Nash, but the origin is much older - and mostly unprintable. Most recently it has been associated with the Army's engineering battalions, dating back to (at least) WW I. Here are two of the least bawdy variants:
- An Anonymous WWI Soldier
- 36h Engineer Combat Regiment (WW II)
- Motto: RUGGED
There is some evidence that the origin may be an Ozark folksong, The Mountaineers, which is quite bawdy.
The Engineers have hairy ears,
they live in caves and ditches,
But when the trouble starts,
they fight like sons of witches
- An Anonymous WWI Soldier
The Engineers have hairy ears
They live in caves and ditches
They wipe their ass with broken glass
They're rugged sons of bitches.
- 36h Engineer Combat Regiment (WW II)
- Motto: RUGGED
There is some evidence that the origin may be an Ozark folksong, The Mountaineers, which is quite bawdy.
MARINES OR NAVY?
From John McCain FAQs at the Washington Times.
Q: Which is better, the Navy or the Marines?
A: The Marines are a department of the Navy. The Men's Department ...
Somehow, I think Senator McCain would laugh, then respectfully disagree.
A MODEST SUGGESTION
Driving back from Connecticut a few weeks ago, we went through a number of construction zones where “fines are doubled” obstensibly to protect worker safety. Thinking about that as I peruse the news daily and see the number of Congress-critters accused of violating various and sundry laws, I thought “Why not?”
To protect average Americans, you and me, why not double the penalty for any elected official convicted of a crime; treble the penalty if they voted for the law they broke?
I doubt it would reduce the number of violations, but it might, just might, slow the growth of really dumb laws.
To protect average Americans, you and me, why not double the penalty for any elected official convicted of a crime; treble the penalty if they voted for the law they broke?
I doubt it would reduce the number of violations, but it might, just might, slow the growth of really dumb laws.
OBSCENE “PROFITS”
Charles Krauthammer is one of my favorite columnists, but he clearly lost it in his recent commentary (no link* but here’s the Post’s home page) advocating an increase in the gasoline tax. Krauthammer would increase the federal tax and use the receipts to either (a) reduce other taxes, or (b) fund research into alternative energy.
Let’s look at his proposal. Suppose we add a $1/gallon tax on $4/gallon gasoline, making the total cost at the pump $5/gallon. Assume 20% in “administrative expenses” and the Government has an 80 cent/gallon “profit” to distribute.
If we choose option (a) and refund the money via lower taxes, then I have an additional 80 cents (per gallon consumed) to spend. On what? Well, how about gasoline? Now I’m spending $4.20 for gasoline that used to cost $4.00.
Well, okay, let’s spend the money funding alternative energies. Um, like ethanol? Does anyone really believe that the Government is capable of picking an alternative energy winner? Please contact me if you do – I’ve got some wonderful deals on beachfront property in Arizona.
As an aside, isn’t it wonderful that the enviro-nitwits are railing against the oil companies “obscene profits” while advocating obscene profits for themselves in the form of various carbon taxes?
Amazing.
(* behind the Washington Post firewall, and I refuse to give them anything beyond my subscription money)
Let’s look at his proposal. Suppose we add a $1/gallon tax on $4/gallon gasoline, making the total cost at the pump $5/gallon. Assume 20% in “administrative expenses” and the Government has an 80 cent/gallon “profit” to distribute.
If we choose option (a) and refund the money via lower taxes, then I have an additional 80 cents (per gallon consumed) to spend. On what? Well, how about gasoline? Now I’m spending $4.20 for gasoline that used to cost $4.00.
Well, okay, let’s spend the money funding alternative energies. Um, like ethanol? Does anyone really believe that the Government is capable of picking an alternative energy winner? Please contact me if you do – I’ve got some wonderful deals on beachfront property in Arizona.
As an aside, isn’t it wonderful that the enviro-nitwits are railing against the oil companies “obscene profits” while advocating obscene profits for themselves in the form of various carbon taxes?
Amazing.
(* behind the Washington Post firewall, and I refuse to give them anything beyond my subscription money)
NATIONAL D-DAY MEMORIAL
We took a day trip to the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia, in response to a Washington Times commentary by Stroube Smith. The Memorial gives a peek at what the landing at Normandy beach was like on June 6, 1944. Here's Smith:
Per capita, Bedford was the hardest-hit community in the United States. Here are some photos from the Memorial.
The Overlord Arch is the dominant structure on the Memorial grounds.
Under and slightly behind the Arch is a rifle and helmet tribute to those who died that day.
The following two photos give some small idea of the landing and scaling the cliffs above the beach. The low wall in the back of the photo marks the memorial area; the plaques contain the names of all who died that day.
The Eisenhower memorial.
The Bedford Boysby Alex Kershaw is a history of the men from Bedford.
"34 young men from Bedford landed in the first wave on Omaha Beach, all members of the First Battalion of the 116th Regiment, 29th Infantry Division, all but two of them in Company A.
Within minutes, 19 were killed. Three more died later in the campaign."
Per capita, Bedford was the hardest-hit community in the United States. Here are some photos from the Memorial.
The Overlord Arch is the dominant structure on the Memorial grounds.
Under and slightly behind the Arch is a rifle and helmet tribute to those who died that day.
The following two photos give some small idea of the landing and scaling the cliffs above the beach. The low wall in the back of the photo marks the memorial area; the plaques contain the names of all who died that day.
The Eisenhower memorial.
The Bedford Boysby Alex Kershaw is a history of the men from Bedford.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)