text:
Tax issues will figure prominently in the goings-on in Washington this presidential election year, with the consensus among tax specialists being that Congress is most likely to address the estate tax when it decides late this year whether to extend the Bush tax cuts.
As it stands now, on Jan. 1, 2013, the estate tax will revert back to the 2001 level, which included a $1 million exemption and a 55% rate, from the current 35% top rate and $5 million portable exemption. When Congress addresses the Bush tax cuts, which will most likely be after the election, "an estate tax compromise will be part of that" discussion, says Jeremy Scott, an editor with Tax Analysts.
Based on the current makeup of Congress, Scott adds, "unless the [presidential] election produces a decisive result, [the rate] that's in place now will be either permanently extended or extended for at least another 10 years. I would be surprised if the [estate tax] reverted" back to Clinton-era rates. "I think [the rate] will end up somewhere [near] where it is now."
Another short-term extension, Scott opines, is also unlikely as Congress "doesn't want to deal with this issue every two years."
But Robert Miller, president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, told me that during NAIFA's "Day on the Hill" in late January, he spoke with at least eight congressmen who said lawmakers would likely "extend the current [estate tax] rates for another year."
Joe Lieber of Washington Analysis, which conducts research on Washington policy matters for institutional investors, said he expects the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of this year, "meaning that the financial markets will begin to price in a higher dividend rate if they haven't already." Expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a significant issue since it would raise taxes on virtually every taxpayer, change the rates on dividends to ordinary income, raise capital gain rates, bring back the marriage penalty, eliminate the child tax credit and raise the alternative minimum tax (AMT).
As for the payroll tax cut extension, which expired on Feb. 29, Lieber says Congress will likely approve a 10-month extension. But Christopher Bergin, president of Tax Analysts, says there's a danger for Social Security if Congress continues to "extend" the payroll tax cut as opposed to finding a long-term solution. "If [Congress] keeps extending this payroll tax cut there's a threat to Social Security that no one is talking about, of it not becoming a separate system but just another budget item" for Congress.
President Barack Obama said during his State of the Union speech in January that he wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire. "When it comes to the deficit, we've already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices," Obama said. "Right now, we're poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary."
Obama asked in the speech: "Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else—like education and medical research, a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't do both."
New Assault on Estate Tax Itself
However, Republicans have been trying to kill the estate tax outright for some time, with the most recent attack coming from Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., who introduced a bill on Jan. 23, H.R. 3804, which would permanently repeal the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax.
Scott says that Huelscamp's bill "undoes everything that Obama has done—it eliminates the estate tax, which is a long-standing Republican position, and it permanently extends the Bush tax cuts for all income levels." The House, he says, "might pass [the bill], but I've heard the Republican leadership may not even take up an estate tax bill in the near future."
What's more, he says, Republicans "certainly aren't going to get the AMT repealed anytime soon because that would just blow the budget apart."
Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, told Congress in January during his testimony on the CBO's just-released "Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022," that the AMT is indexed for inflation after 2011. Under current law, Elmendorf said, its parameters are fixed, and the number of taxpayers affected by the AMT will jump from 4 million in calendar year 2011 to 30 million in 2012.
Another looming issue is sequestration cuts, the automatic spending cuts that would kick in on Jan. 1, 2013 that are divided equally between defense and non-defense discretionary programs. Programs excluded from the automatic cuts include Social Security, Medicaid and veterans' benefits. The failure of the Congressional supercommittee to act will cause an across-the-board cut in federal spending. Lieber of Washington Analysis said that "there is a real risk that at least the first year's $109 billion sequestration [cuts] will go into effect."
For more on estate planning, see:
8 Estate Planning Mistakes to Avoid
Use life insurance to minimize your client's tax burden


text:
Washington, George: Bibliography
There have been a great many studies of phases and incidents of Washington's career and a continual stream of biographies; the definitive biography is by D. S. Freeman (7 vol., 1948–57; abr. ed. 1968); Volume VII was written after Freeman's death by J. A. Carroll and M. W. Ashworth of his staff. The biography (1940) begun by N. W. Stephenson and completed by W. H. Dunn is full and eminently useful; so is the four-volume biography by J. T. Flexner (1965–72). The early biography by
Parson M. L. Weems is important chiefly because it contains many of the now-famous Washington legends, such as that of the cherry tree. Biographies of Washington by eminent men of another day include those by J. Marshall, J. Sparks, and W. Irving. Other biographies include those by P. L. Ford (1896, repr. 1971), W. Wilson (1896, repr. 1969), J. Corbin (1930, repr. 1972), L. M. Sears (1932), J. C. Fitzpatrick (1933, repr. 1970), N. Callahan (1972), R. Brookhiser (1996), J. M. Burns and S. Dunn (2004), J. J. Ellis (2004), P. Johnson (2005), R. Chernow (2010), S. Brumwell (2012), and G. Rhodehamel (2017).
See also W. C. Ford, Washington as Employer and Importer of Labour (1889, repr. 1971); G. A. Eisen, Portraits of Washington (3 vol., 1932); E. S. Whitely, Washington and His Aides-de-Camp (1936, repr. 1968); F. R. Bellamy, The Private Life of George Washington (1951); C. P. Nettels, George Washington and American Independence (1951); M. Cunliffe, George Washington: Man and Monument (1958); L. M. Sears, George Washington and the French Revolution (1960); B. Knollenberg, Washington and the Revolution (1940, repr. 1968) and George Washington, the Virginia Period, 1732–1775 (1964); T. N. Dupuy, The Military Life of George Washington (1969); F. MacDonald, The Presidency of George Washington (1974); E. S. Morgan, The Genius of George Washington (1980); G. Wills, Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment (1984); J. E. Ferling, The First of Men (1988) and The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon (2009); G. Vidal, Inventing a Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson (2003); H. Wiencek, An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America (2003); D. McCullough, 1776 (2005); J. P. Kaminski, The Great Virginia Triumvirate: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison in the Eyes of Their Contemporaries (2010); B. Schecter, George Washington's America: A Biography through His Maps (2010); R. Middlekauff, Washington's Revolution (2015); T. Fleming, The Strategy of Victory: How General George Washington Won the American Revolution (2017).
- Introduction
- Presidency
- Early Life
- The American Revolution
- Writings
- The French and Indian War
- Bibliography
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
See more Encyclopedia articles on: U.S. History: Biographies

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Merry Christmas Eve!
We kicked our Christmas celebrations off this morning with the Anderson Christmas Eve brunch at my Uncle Bill's house. His Christmas snow village was clearly the star of the morning.
When I was younger my uncle would dedicate his entire dining room to his Christmas snow village. The train would circle the entire village and we would spend hours making up stories for all the villagers we spotted running Christmas errands around town.
After my aunt passed in '94 my uncle started cutting back on his village until one year he just stopped doing it all together. I'd say it's been 10-15 years since we last saw any of the villagers skating on the town pond, bringing mail to the post office, or frolicking in the park.
Per his granddaughters' request, my uncle decided it was time to dust off the ole village and set it up once again this year. It was even better than I remembered. So many details in such a tiny village. I can't imagine how much fun it must have been to put it together again.
The brunch was casual, relaxed, and full of family love.
Photobombed by mom!
There were mimosas
and all the good savory stuff.
Time to eat!
Breakfast with a view.
I loaded my plate up and enjoyed a couple of cookies post-breakfast.
It wasn't long after we finished breakfast that you could hear the little ones yelling from the other room "Presents! Time for presents!"
In my family all the under-eighteen year olds get gifts.
The adults do a white elephant gift exchange.
We all draw a number and take turns selecting and opening gifts.
There's a fondue pot that's in its fourth or fifth year of being passed around in the gift exchange. It started out as a joke, but now it's just a family tradition.
Usually who ever re-enters it in the pot hides a gift card or cash inside. 😉
I found a toilet-shaped mug on Amazon that I knew would be perfect for the gift exchange.
My family is in the porta potty business and has a thing for collecting outhouses and toilets. I thought it was hilarious.
The best part was my Uncle Bill actually stole the gift from my Uncle Bob. Ha! I knew they'd like it.
We finished presents with my dad's side of the family, then headed back home to give the dogs their gifts.
I'm not sure they 100% knew what was going on, but that didn't stop them from trying to figure it all out.
Maddie got a brand new bed from her grandma and grandpa.
I think she liked it. 🙂
We're resting up before Christmas Eve Part II with my mom's side of the family. There's a turkey roasting in the oven, potatoes cooking on the stovetop, and more cookies than we know what to do with! Man, I love Christmas!
{ Comments on this entry are closed }


text:
The Making of a Russell Chatham Lithograph
Painter and writer Russell Chatham is no stranger to Northern Michigan. He spent years wandering Leelanau County with his friend, writer Jim Harrison, and, maybe as a result, people Up North feel a particular affinity to his work. But it might just be that Chatham's haunting and evocative landscapes speak to our sense of place as they do for people throughout the world.
While Harrison has left Leelanau County and become Chatham's full-time neighbor in Livingston, Montana now, Chatham is making the journey back to Northern Michigan to speak as a part of his exhibit "Poetry of Landscape: The Seasons—Paintings by Russell Chatham" at Dennos Museum Center in Traverse City. This exhibit, which includes 28 of Chatham's stunning works, most of them oils, runs until April 6. His presentation, "An Evening with Russell Chatham at the Dennos Museum Center," follows on April 4 from 6-8 p.m. Tickets can be purchased through Dennos Museum Center. Read Jeff Smith's short interview with Chatham done in anticipation of his visit, Russell Chatham To Speak at Dennos.
Chatham has been many things in his lifetime: a fly fisherman, a writer, a restaurant owner. But it is his art that has elevated him to the status of one of the most acclaimed landscape artists in America. His style and use of color is resplendent in the oils featured in this show, but Chatham is also one of the world's most recognized lithographers.
In this video, written and produced by Chatham and his publishing house, Clark City Press, Chatham lets us stand in a Montana landscape and watch as his first sketch makes it to paper, then we tag along as that image makes its way through various forms until, ultimately, it stands as one of his sought-after, numbered lithographs.
To purchase a copy of the video, contact Clark City Press.


text:
Comparing the stock market and Iowa land values: A question of timing
The recent decrease in Iowa farmland values and the turbulence in the stock market have resurrected a perennial question. Which is a better investment - the stock market or farmland?
Iowa farmland values have shown yearly increases for eight of the past nine years. The values remain at the record high levels where they have been for the past six years. Based on the Iowa State University Land Value Survey, the 2009 estimated average farmland value in Iowa was $4,371 per acre. This was a decrease of 2.2 percent from the 2008 estimate. Since 1990, the estimated average value of Iowa land has more than tripled, going from $1,214 to $4,371 per acre.
The composite value of the stock market, as measured by the Standard & Poor's Index (S&P) average, has started recovering from the disastrous 2008 year. Even though the S&P lost almost 32 percent of its value between 2000 and 2008, its overall record has been impressive since 1990. Stock values rose from 328.75 in 1990 to 1,108.86 in December 2009, an increase of over 100 percent in spite of the decline in 2008.
To determine which option provided the better investment, this paper compares and contrasts the returns to farmland and the stock market since 1960. It also discusses some of the important factors to consider over the next few years.
The returns to land or stock shares are composed of two parts. The first is capital gains or the increase in value. Obviously, this also could be a capital loss if values decrease. The second component is yearly returns.
Owning land has an unavoidable annual ownership cost not associated with stocks. Property taxes must be paid and should be included in a comparison of owning stocks or farmland. Additionally, if farmland is held as an investment and not by an owner-operator, there could be a professional farm manager involved and the fee for this service would have to be considered. There is also a need for some maintenance and insurance with farmland not associated with owning stocks.
The data used for this analysis comes from different sources. The Iowa average land values come from the yearly Iowa State University Extension publication FM 1825. The average farmland rental rate was obtained from USDA/Economic Research Service (ERS) in the Land Use, Value, and Management briefing room. The average land tax per acre is calculated using data from ERS farm income data. Taxes per acre were calculated as the real estate taxes paid divided by the total number of acres.
The Standard & Poor's averages and yearly dividends for 1960 to 2009 were taken from the web site of Dr. Robert J. Shiller at Yale Univesity (www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller). The value used is for December of each year.
A few assumptions are necessary to determine which provides the better investment. It is assumed $1,000 is invested in each alternative at the end of the year. The amount of land or stock purchased will depend on the existing value. For example, in 1960 the average farmland value in Iowa was $261 per acre. So, for $1,000, 3.83 acres could have been purchased.
A second assumption is that all the net land rent or the dividend earned in any year will be reinvested in the land or the stock market. This will increase the number of units held. To continue the example above, average Iowa farmland rent in 1961 was $17.10 per acre. Average taxes in 1961 were $3.79 per acre. Using a 7 percent of gross rent management fee and a 6 percent of gross rent charge for insurance and maintenance, the net return per acre in 1961 was $11.08.
The net rent in 1961 represented a 4.25 percent return. For the $1,000 investment this would be a return of $42.50. In 1961, the average land value had remained unchanged at $261 per acre. If the entire return were invested back into land, .16 acres could have been purchased. So, at the end of 1961 the investor would have 3.99 acres worth $1,042. This process is repeated each year in the analysis.
Land taxes, a management fee, insurance and maintenance are the only ownership costs considered for land. There is no ownership cost assumed for stocks. No transactions costs or other costs are considered in this analysis.
The annual percentage changes since 1960 in the S&P and Iowa land values reflect considerable yearly variation in both investments. Land values changed an average of 6.6 percent with a standard deviation of 12.0 percent. Yearly percentage change for land ranged from a negative 30.1 percent to a positive 31.7 percent. The Standard & Poor's yearly closing value showed an average percentage change of 7.7 percent with a standard deviation of 16.8 percent. The yearly percentage change in the S&P ranged from a negative 40.7 percent to a positive 35 percent.The yearly return to land after taxes, management fee and insurance and maintenance has averaged 4.68 percent of land values since 1960. The standard deviation of the yearly return to land has been 1.1 percent. The maximum yearly return was 7.9 percent while the low was 2.8 percent. The Standard and Poor yearly dividend has averaged 3.2 percent of the S&P closing level from 1960 to 2008. The standard deviation was 1.2 percent, the maximum yearly return was 5.4 percent and the lowest yearly return was 1.2 percent over the same time period.
Figure 1 shows the return to $1,000 invested in 1960. At that time, $1,000 would have purchased 3.83 acres or 17.6 shares of the S&P. Using the assumptions above, an investor at the end of 2009 would have 32.87 acres worth approximately $143,672, or they would have 75.58 shares of the Standard and Poor's worth approximately $83,805. In other words, the value of the S&P investment would be only 58 percent of the value of the land investment.
There have been periods since 1960 when the returns to the stock market have been higher. However, for the most part, land has shown higher returns over the past 49 years. It is interesting to note the recent dramatic swings in the S&P, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2 shows what would have happened if the $1,000 investment in land or the S&P had been made in 1970. At that time $1,000 would purchase 2.39 acres or 11.1 shares of the S&P. By 2009, the land investment would have been worth $58,456, while the S&P investment would have been worth $39,029. An investment made in the S&P in 1970 would be 67 percent of the value of an investment in land.
Figure 3 presents the results of a $1,000 investment had it been made in 1980, near the previous peak in Iowa land values. In 1980, the $1,000 investment in land would have purchased only .48 acres of land or 7.49 shares of the S&P. By 2009, the land investment would have been worth $8,314 while the S&P investment would have been worth $17,365. The land investment would only be 48 percent of the stock market investment.
Figure 4 shows a comparison of the returns in 2009 based on the year of the initial investment. This figure presents the returns to Iowa farmland as a percent of the returns to the S&P. If the value is above 100 percent then the farmland would have a higher value, conversely if the value is below 100 percent then the S&P would have a higher value for an investment made in that year.
Figure 4 shows that the timing of the investment makes a difference in which appears to be a better investment. Land would have been the better investment in all years except the period from 1974 to 1984. This period coincides with the rise in land values during the 1970s. Land values in Iowa began their rapid rise in 1973 and peaked in 1981.
Which is the better investment, Iowa farmland or the stock market, is a complicated question and one for which there is no one best answer. Several factors need to be considered when trying to answer this question and several assumptions have to be made.
In this paper, real estate taxes, a management fee, insurance and maintenance were subtracted from the return to land. These were the only ownership costs assumed for land. There would be other costs that would vary with the individual circumstances.
This study also assumed there would be no transactions costs. There would be costs associated with either the purchase of land or the purchase of stocks.
Finally, this study assumed average performance for land values, rents and for the stock market. Deviations from average performance would produce different results.
The majority of land is purchased by existing farmers. They purchase the land for a variety of reasons that may or may not fit with traditional investment theory. In spite of this, land, over the long run, has produced competitive, if not superior, returns compared to the stock market.
What will happen to the value of farmland over the next several years? The future is hard to predict, but in this case it is especially difficult. There are several factors that will have an immediate impact on land values and other longer-term factors that will determine the future performance of land.
The value of land is determined by its income earning potential. For the most part, in Iowa, that means the returns to corn and/or soybeans. Returns will be influenced by a number of factors over the next several years. Oil prices, ethanol prices, crop yields, costs of production, economic recovery, alternative biomass sources, and a host of other major issues will have an influence on the price of land.
Another uncertainty in the land market is the changing landowner demographics. In 1982, 12 percent of the farmland in Iowa was owned by someone over 75 years old. By 2007, this percentage had more than doubled to 28 percent. In 2007, over half, 55 percent, of the farmland in Iowa was owned by someone over the age of 65. How this land will be transferred from one generation to the next is not entirely clear at this time. It appears that the majority of it will be passed on to the children, usually in equal shares. This means there will be more landowners and more out of state owners. Whether they will want to continue to own the land or sell it is unknown. Too much land being offered for sale is not a problem at this time but it could become one if the next generation doesn't want to hold on to the land.
The performance of the stock market for the next few years is also not clear. The impact of the stimulus package and how soon it will be felt are unknown at this time. Further compounding the situation is the impact of government ownership of several major companies.
The budget deficit continues to grow and will place a burden on the economy as the U.S. seeks to find ways to support the level of expenditures and revenues it has seen over the past few years.
The imbalance of trade is another area of uncertainty with respect to possible impacts on the U.S. economy and the performance of the stock market and the land market.
A complete discussion of all the factors that could influence the land or stock market is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say there is considerable uncertainty as one looks ahead. While uncertainty about the future is not new, there is a level of concern for both the land market and the stock market.
Land and the stock market are different types of investments and assets. This simple comparison was based strictly on averages. There are a number of individual stocks that perform better than the S&P. But, there are some that don't perform as well. Anyone contemplating the question which is a better investment needs to know their goals.
Land's performance relative to the stock market over the past few years has been spectacular. Will this trend continue, time will tell. Which is the better investment? As the old saying goes, timing is everything in the success of a rain dance.
Michael D. Duffy, retired economist. Questions?


text:
The "New Horizons" mod for the 2003 Pirates of the Caribbean game by Akella is a continuation of the famous Build mod series. Developed as Pirates of the Caribbean Build 14, "New Horizons" continues where Build 13 left off, adding more new content than ever before.
The file you are trying to view (SWS New Horizons Manual Release 2 - SWS_Build_14_Manual_-_d5cREL2_-_18-12-09.pdf) uploaded by carmenara has been deleted and is no longer available. This may have occurred at the uploaders request, or it may have occurred because it violated the sites Terms of Use. If this is a mistake and you are the uploader of this file and would like it re-activated, please contact us with the details.
We recommend you return to the download list and browse the links from there.


text:
Volcano Art Center will offer a series of beading workshops with Phyllis Cullen. The first, "Introduction to Beadweaving" happens onREAD MORE
segmented wood
Showing all 3 results
Where People, Art & Nature Meet
Showing all 3 results
We look forward to hearing from you. Our main Gallery in Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park is open Thursday-Sunday from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. Our Niaulani Campus Admin Office & Gallery in Volcano Village is open Monday-Friday, 10:00 am to 4:00 pm.
Volcano Art Center Niaulani Campus Admin Office
19-4074 Old Volcano Rd, Volcano, HI 96785
808-967-7565 (Gallery in HVNP)
808-967-8222 (Admin Office & Mini Gallery in Volcano Village)
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 129 Volcano, HI 96785
Thu-Sun (Gallery): 9:00 am – 4:00 pm
Mon-Fri (Office & Mini Gallery): 10:00 am – 4:00 pm
Volcano Art Center will offer a series of beading workshops with Phyllis Cullen. The first, "Introduction to Beadweaving" happens onREAD MORE
The Soft Pastel Still Life Workshop will be held on Saturday, October 24, from 9am - 12:30pm at Volcano Art Center. Exaggerate! BeREAD MORE
Volcano Art Center is proud to offer the hands-on "Introduction to Sogetsu Ikebana" workshop with Nancy "Sorin" Locke on Thursday,READ MORE
Both of our Gallery locations are OPEN! Come visit us at our #Gallery in @Volcanoes_NPS & Gallery in Volcano Villag… twitter.com/i/web/status/12734…
Looking for #facemasks & #handsanitizer? We've got you covered! Introducing the new Tropical Hand Sanitizer by… twitter.com/i/web/status/12686…
We're open! Volcano Art Center looks forward to welcoming you back to the Niaulani Gallery in Volcano Village! To c… twitter.com/i/web/status/12679…


text:
Sure there'll be a carrier. With 12 planes. In 2020. Maybe
But in fact none of this will happen until 2020, and meanwhile the existing Ark Royal and her Harriers are to disappear immediately. There will be no carrier capability at all for a decade, and we are explicitly told that the new fleet air arm may well be cancelled before it can appear, or be cut down to a single ship which will naturally only be available to operate some of the time. The written statement says:
Our current plan is to hold one of the two new carriers at extended readiness. That leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier-strike capability; or to re-generate more quickly a two-carrier strike capability. Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier-strike capability. The next strategic defence and security review in 2015 will provide an opportunity to review these options as the future strategic environment develops.
So in fact we may well see just one carrier or none: it will be the next government's decision.
Furthermore, while an F-35C tailhook jet is indeed cheaper and more capable than an F-35B jumpjet, it isn't cheap enough for the MoD in the coming decade. As planned, the new carriers were each to carry an air group of 36 jets, which would have meant buying around 150 once some were set aside for the RAF to use in landbased operations and more for training, in deep maintenance etc.
We now learn that the Prince of Wales will set sail in 2020 - if she isn't scrapped, mothballed or sold off at the 2015 review - carrying just 12 jets, indicating that the UK will buy no more than 50 F-35s in the near future. Far from an arse-kicking national flagship able to take on an enemy air force alone, we will have one which can barely provide herself with fighter cover - and one which may not be there when the call is sounded.
And it gets worse. At the moment our amphibious forces are quite well served, having both the former Harrier-carrier Illustrious and the purpose built HMS Ocean dedicated as bases for helicopters and marines - meaning that one is always available, and we can always land troops anywhere in the world should we choose to. Mr Cameron plans to get rid of one of these ships, ensuring that often we won't be able to.
A bold Prime Minister would have cut the pointless naval frigate/destroyer force down to 12 or even 10, overruling any protests so as to get the nation the capability it needs rather than the one the Navy's uniformed bureaucrats need to develop their careers. He would have preserved our amphibious ships (easily - each one costs little more than a frigate to run). He would have used the cash thus saved to fit both the new carriers with catapults - and he would not have planned to buy any F-35s at all in the coming decade, as no matter what type we buy they will be early in their production run and very expensive.
Instead this notional bold, decisive and modernising Prime Minister would have bought or leased cheap F-18 Hornets as operated by the present day US Navy. A force of 100+ Hornets would cost no more than the planned 50-odd F-35Cs, and would be more than good enough against any likely enemy. There would probably be cash over for some Hawkeye radar planes, too - if not the latest E-2Ds, surely the more economical export E-2C versions. Our fleet would thus at last have proper airborne radar, the lack of which is of far more importance than the presence of Stealth and other snazzy gadgetry in the F-35: most of our dead sailors and soldiers in the Falklands died for lack of airborne radar to pick up low-flying Argentine attackers, and the present radar helicopters are a poor stopgap at best.
That plan would have got us proper carriers and proper air groups in a few years at most, finally shifting the Royal Navy away from its focus on battling the Soviet submarine and bomber fleets of the 1960s using the weapons of the 1960s. If Mr Cameron were a proper, innovating Prime Minister that's what he would have done. If he'd managed to chop the RAF's bombers and/or trim some more tanks, it would have been even easier.
But no. With his back against the wall, Cameron has at last managed to give the abysmal Nimrod the mercy bullet it has been begging for so long. The only other things he has managed to get rid of are carrier strike and amphibious warfare - neither of them Cold War items, both very useful in all our recent real-world wars** - while the obsolete armoured juggernaut and heavy bomber forces carry on.
It can't be a coincidence that the outgoing chief of defence staff is RAF and the incoming one is Army - in effect Cameron's plans look rather as though the Army and RAF wrote them, indicating that he and his Cabinet have no more control over the MoD than their predecessors: maybe even less.
Still, perhaps Cameron has managed to tackle the even more severe scourge of porkbarrel procurement. Perhaps he has moved to end the purchasing of kit so as to create very limited numbers of UK jobs at horrific costs in terms of money, capability and time? Perhaps he really meant it when he said that the MoD will no longer be ripped off by UK and European contractors all day and every day?
Again, no. The idiotic, wildly expensive A400M transports will continue - when much more cost-effective C-17s and C-130Js are to be had for the asking. The expensive, useless Future Lynx (aka "Wildcat") light chopper, partly UK made, will live on. And perhaps the greatest boondoggle of them all, the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) deal, remains untouched.
FSTA, one might note, is a PFI deal like the Skynet comms sats. UK defence contractors allied under the name AirTanker will buy and operate some Airbus tankers, with a guaranteed income from the RAF. Naturally they expect to make a profit out of this, and within limits that's fair enough - but everyone in the aviation industry knows that this particular profit is going to be more suitably described using such terms as "outrageous", "gouging" or "profiteering". The deal is set to cost at least £10.5bn and will probably provide no more than 9 A330s. Making the usual calculation of support vs acquisition this is to price those planes at £400m each - far and away more than even the ridiculous Nimrods cost, for far simpler planes!
And on top of this, the MoD doesn't even own the aircraft - when FSTA ends they will have nothing. Even while it is going on, the chuckling AirTanker firms can rent the planes out for even more money when the RAF hasn't got any spare cash to book them.
Mr Cameron might more suitably have spent his time inveighing against Labour for signing this cretinous deal rather than the comparatively tiny carrier contract. But he didn't.