Hate Crime versus the First Amendment

Hate crime. These crimes occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a social group. This as opposed to a polictically correct jerk that beats me up for no other reason than he can.

First, I defy you to find one case in the US when hate crime laws were enforced when a minority assaulted a white man because he was white or heterosexual. Prime example of selective prosecution.

More importantly it is an infringement of the first amendment. I can hate you and I can tell the world that I hate you and that is “generally” protected by the first amendment. But combining the first amendment protected statement that “I hate you because you are a Libertarian” with the violent assault is double trouble.

If I assault you for any reason I can be convicted of a felony and perhaps go to jail for a few years. Let’s say two years at the state pen.

But if I tell you that I hate you (because of the group you belong to) while I assault you then instead of going to prison for two years then I might be sent there for four to five years.

So in essence we are sending the politically correct assaulter to prison for two years and sending non-politically correct assaulter to prison for four years. The only difference is that the outspoken assaulter told his victim that he hated the victim (because the victim was a Libertarian) while he was beating him up.

If I am a victim I really don’t care what your motivations are when you are assaulting me. Don’t do it for any reason. And if you do beat me up then I don’t want you to get any special time off because you are politically correct.

If you choose to assault me because I am a white heterosexual male, then I think you should go to prison just as long as if you beat me up because I am rooting for the San Francisco Giants against the Dodgers in Los Angeles.

Great story about science, math and engineering

"Freeman Hrabowski says the United States is not producing enough scientists and engineers - professions critical to creating more jobs."

Our unemployment insurance system sends the wrong signals.

I have heard liberals argue recently in favor of growing and extending our unemployment insurance programs. But I have real problems with how unemployment insurance as it is currently structured and financed today.

Let’s consider an example of Bill, an employer who is considering hiring Joe. If there were no employee taxes, no unemployment insurance, no benefits and no other employer costs, it would be simple to calculate the cost at say $10 an hour. And as long as Joe can generate at least $11 in increased revenue for Bill then Bill is ahead as an employer by $1 an hour. But it is not that simple. Bill must also pay perhaps $.50 an hour for unemployment insurance, $.75 an hour for social security and Medicare employer contributions, $1 an hour for workers compensation insurance and $2 an hour in health care benefits. All of a sudden Joe’s cost to Bill is $14.25 an hour (not to mention increased liability insurance, capital costs, management time and other overhead costs). So if Joe can still only produce $11 in marginal income, Bill lays Joe off. And then you know what happens? Bill’s cost for unemployment insurance goes up even higher (say to $.75 an hour) because Bill has a history of laying employees off so he is deemed to have increased the cost of providing this insurance.

This last characteristic about employer’s cost of unemployment insurance is another disincentive to hire anyone in the first place. Why hire anyone on the margin? If Bill guesses wrong, he not only loses on his underlying bet but his future cost of business will increase along with his higher unemployment insurance premiums. Our incentives should encourage, long-term employment, mid-term employment and short-term employment. At least when Joe is working in what might be a short-term job, he is learning, producing and positioning himself far better to land his next gig than sitting at home collecting unemployment insurance.

I am fine with charging an employer for workers compensation insurance. Because that is a real cost attributable to more work and is roughly priced according to how dangerous the work is. It reflects approximately the marginal cost of each additional hour of work. All things being equal, we would rather encourage safer work than less safe work. This charge to Bill reflects real costs associated with the industry in which Bill operates, and does not subsidize dangerous jobs by making safer jobs less competitive.

But it is counterproductive to charge employers for the cost of unemployment insurance. It makes marginally profitable employees and prospective employees less profitable and sometimes not profitable at all. When the later happens people lose their jobs and go onto unemployment insurance, raising unemployment insurance premiums and increasing the subsidies from government.

I am all for a limited safety net provided by government. But government ends up subsidizing unemployment insurance benefits and recently has extended them to up to three years.

We should be simplifying our safety net. If you don’t have enough money for food, basic housing and medical care I support helping these folks. But the system would be far more productive if we streamlined it and separated it from the issue of whether the individual just lost his job.

I have liberal friends that argue that unemployment benefits are a great way to pour money into the economy. And it might do some of that. But this trick might have had more positive benefits when most of what these unemployed people consume goods that were manufactured in the US. That is rarely the case today. The government is subsidizing unemployment benefits today and creating jobs, but most of them are in China.

So what are the factors that have led some socially liberal democracies to economic success while others, like Greece are in the tank?

My liberal friends point to how well some social democracies have fared in the last few decades – namely Germany, Norway, Canada, and Australia. But they rarely bring up Greece.

Sometimes they attribute the economic success to a big comfortable safety net for their citizens. Sometimes they point to the success of a high tax, big entitlement society. Just recently a friend tried to attribute the financial success to the 35 hour work week in Germany and France.

But let’s face it, the success of an economy has hundreds if not thousands of different factors. Many are pure luck, some aspects are systematic and some are cultural. To begin with if a country starts out relatively wealthy it has a better chance of doing well several decades later. If a country is landlocked in the middle of Africa, with poverty-stricken countries around it, the odds of the country breaking out economically are slim. How wealthy would Saudi Arabia be today without its oil?

But Greece may be example number one of a country with many substantial advantages that have been squandered. They borrowed to the hilt to support a huge entitlement system and now will be paying the price for decades to come.

Here are a few of the advantages that Greece has had since World War II: It was a beneficiary of the Marshall Plan. It has plenty of (Western World) coastline, has been a member of the EU since 1981, and is a top tourist destination (15% of the GDP) with a terrific climate. It is close to a huge and prosperous region and has a thriving maritime industry.

But Greece has obviously had its difficultiesl. In 2009, Greece had the EU’s second-lowest Index of Economic Freedom (after Poland). In other words it prefers unions to free markets. It also turns out that its government had been lying about the amount of its debt for years. The cost of living in Athens is about 90% of that of New York City. It has a recent history (and possibly longer than just recently) of political corruption and maybe one of the worst records in the Western world of citizens cheating on taxes. It is left-wing and still has an active Communist Party and another political party called "The Party of the Radical Left."   Trade unions are strong and pervasive. Along with Spain and Italy, Greece faces a flood of illegal immigrants.

So what are the factors that have led some socially liberal democracies to economic success while others, like Greece are in the tank (granted Greece has done better than poor countries in the heart of Africa)? To start with, Canada, Australia and Norway are incredibly rich in energy and other natural resources. And we all know where those prices have gone in the last decade. And these three plus Germany are near huge and prosperous markets. All of them have an advantage of many English speakers (my hypothesis is that a higher percentage of Norwegians speak English than those residing in California). It is hard to find German executives that don’t speak excellent English. And English is at least today a competitive advantage if one does not speak your customers’ native language. And all four countries have all spent relatively little on National Defense and policing the world compared to the US.

So my point is that is silly to attribute any country’s success to one factor. It is not even several factors that make the difference. It is hundreds of different forces combined with where a country starts that together lead a country to economic success or failure. Many times a country benefits from pure good fortune, for example being occupied by America rather than Russia after WWII. The US ended up with over half of the world’s manufacturing capacity immediately after WWII. Sometimes a country is simply unlucky because it has no natural resources, no wealthy neighbors and is in the middle of Africa. And if a country can borrow enough to support its life style and entitlement programs (like Greece did), sometimes economic troubles can be masked for years.

The left continues its uncivil assault on the Tea Party !

The left continues its uncivil assault on the Tea Party calling them “terrorists”. Why? Because the Tea Party, has the audacity to advocate reduced federal government spending and is willing to use its small position in Congress to hold out.

Democrat Representative Mike Doyle said: “We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Joe Biden agreed saying: “They have acted like terrorists.”

And in a NY times opinion piece yesterday entitled: "The Tea Party's War On America:" said: “You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took. For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They’ll have them on again soon enough. After all, they’ve gotten so much encouragement.”

The Socialist left does not care about a fair and open debate. They “know” what is best for this country and if you and I will simply accept their math, their accounting, their projections and their promises, they will surely tone down their language to a more civil level.

Let's reduce the US Corporate income tax rate

There is much talk about increasing corporate income taxes (which represents about 9% of all Federal revenues). But consider that today the amount that we collect (as a percentage after credits and special tax breaks) is close to the total amount collected in other countries. How about this proposal: Let’s make the corporate tax rate (foreign and domestic) a flat 10% (instead of the nominal 35% today). You get zero tax loss carry forward. If you lose money one year you eat it. If you make money the next year you pay 10% of your profit (sorry General Electric). Very simple and we will spend far less on tax accountants and attorneys.

This should give an advantage (on one of many factors) to US companies and should result in more jobs being created in the US rather than abroad. But let’s make up for lower tax revenues on the back side. For individuals let’s increase both long-term capital gains rates and corporate dividend rates from 15% to 22%.

The value of the S&P and the Dow would immediately go up on this news. This would result in optimism not seen in years and this alone would translate into optimism of CEOs deciding whether to open a new plant or not in the US. We would collect more revenues from these categories (in total) and we would create far more jobs.

My brother's three requests to Republican Leadership

Three requests to Republican Leadership

Like many Americans, I have watched hours of coverage of the Debt Limit circus in Washington. As a Republican, I have had my moments of pride during the past months but more often I have been discouraged by the behavior and game playing of the leaders of my party. My frustration centers on the fact that I am a parent first, an American second and a Republican third. As a citizen of this country that has offered me so much opportunity, I have one primary wish. I want my children and their children to have similar opportunities. With this in mind, I offer the following three requests to the Republican leaders:

Lead the way on transparency: Virtually every budget reduction proposal is based on inflated baseline projections and very weak financial models. Political leaders are purposely misleading the nation about the true state of our budget and the actual impact of proposed "cuts". If the Republican party is going to be the party of transparency, you must address the following distortions that you help propagate:

1) Baseline projections must assume flat spending. Slowing the growth of spending is not a cut. It is only a smaller increase. If public companies used your language to describe their forecasts, the executives would go to prison for fraud. Stop using misleading financial projections.

2) Revamp the CBO models: By law, the CBO models distort the impact of budget cuts and tax increases on the economy. If tax rates go up, there is downward pressure on the economy. If tax rates go down, there is a lift for the economy. Why do you continue to allow the CBO to publish bogus impact projections? Lead the way on changing the laws.

3) Plan for rainy days: Is there a single budget plan that has been put forth that assumes that we will have a recession in the next ten years? What about natural disasters or increased military conflicts? Every responsible adult has some sort of rainy day fund built into their financial plans. Where have you planned for rainy days in your proposed budgets?


Lead the way on shared sacrifice: The only way that our nation will get out of this financial mess is with shared sacrifice. Real and perceived. Most reasonable and knowledgable people realize that increased revenue must be part of the solution to our deficit problem. The deficit is too big to solve with cuts alone. Lead the way in identifying revenue opportunities that are the most supportive of economic growth (or that do the least damage). This is critically important for both practical and political reasons. People are willing to sacrifice if everyone is pitching in. I see five obvious revenue opportunities that show shared sacrifice:

1) Means testing for Social Security: People like me should not see a dime. I would not be happy, but we must all do our part.

2) Establish means based deductibles for Medicare: Once again, I should be expected to pay more.

3) Establish very high tax rates for inheritance. Inherited wealth is like winning the lottery and it should be taxed accordingly. It is far more important we leave our children with a country on firm financial ground and the opportunity for them to succeed than to leave them with lottery winnings.

4) Establish progressive tax rates for capital gains and dividends. The reason that the most wealthy Americans have lower tax rates than the high income working Americans is that they get to pay low taxes on their capital gains. We need to make this far more equitable.

5) Revamp the tax code: The tax code creates tremendous economic inefficiencies by distorting the financial impact of our actions. Cut the deductions and the gimmicks and then lower the rates and you will get more revenue and increased economic activity.

Lastly, lead the way on trusting the American people. Spend your time educating about the realities of our financial mess. Explain the Laffer curve. Show the realities of our unfunded liabilities. Be the party that tells the truth and has the courage to suggest that we must make sacrifices today for the benefit of our children. If you show real leadership, you will be given the opportunity to capture the White House and the Senate. Keep in mind, that if you don't lead, Obamacare goes into affect and pushes us over the deficit cliff and there is almost no way for us to give our children the opportunity that our generation had.

Jim Sherriff
Austin, TX

The liberal media loves to link being conservative with being violent

The Norway attacks were atrocious. A single mad-man created such havoc and mayhem. My thoughts and prayers go to my friends in the Oslo area.

But this article is an affront to the vast majority of those on the political right. It is typical of the type of liberal media hate speech against those that believe in smaller government, fewer taxes, right to free speech, right to own a firearm and managed immigration. Here are some of the expressions they use with glee: “right-wing fundamental Christian”, “right-wing extremist”, “hate speech”, “rightist extremism”. And of course the author advocates the restriction of what non-liberals can say and to whom and how they criticize the left.

This writer, and the NY Times in general, love the opportunity to paint those that believe in less government (generally referred to as the right) as “far-right” thugs. This killer was a psychopathic criminal. And we don’t really know what his views were other than being anti-immigrant.

I go back to my earlier post that the left-right descriptors are a very poor way to divide the political spectrum. http://getbackjack.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-does-it-mean-to-be-far-left-or-far.html

But the liberal media loves to link being on the right with advocating violence. And we have to fight back (peacefully) to set this record straight.

Is there a difference between Socialism and Communism?

Wikipeida defines Socialism as: “an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system”.

Wikipedeia defines Communism as: “ a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate.”

As a practical matter, Communist countries have been more totalitarian than European Socialist countries. But this may be the result of a small sample size rather than a fundamental difference.

In US politics, describing Obama as a Socialist is absolutely accepted by the GOP (and elicits little push back from the left). But calling him a Communist is viewed as “over the top”.

In Socialism and Communism the “means of production are publicly or commonly owned” (think US banks, Government Motors, NASA, public school, Midicare, Obamacare, Social Security, and flood insurance).

Private property in all these cases tends to be taken over by the state.
So is Obama a Socialist, a Communist, or neither?

Is a welfare state with open borders sustainable?

Is it a good idea to combine a welfare state with open borders? Milton Friedman the famous libertarian economist suggested that the US could benefit from an open border policy (he later modified this view). But he assumed that we would not hand out benefits to new immigrants at the rate we give them to existing citizens.

The left is a strong advocate of an open US border that allows any immigrant to cross into the US and become a citizen (and of course vote for them). They also happen to be an advocate of a strong safety net (code for welfare state).

So a welfare state (with public housing, aid for dependent children, state and federal disability insurance, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, school breakfast, lunch and dinner programs, public health insurance, public dental programs and public education) is one thing if the population is stable. But how expensive would it be if we were once the richest country in the world and then opened our borders to anyone that wanted to cross (legally or not)?

The curse of the major league baseball union

I am pro-baseball and anti-union. And major league baseball provides two examples of unions at their worst.

Curt Flood filed an antitrust lawsuit against major league baseball in 1970 because his team, the Cardinals, had exercised their unilateral right to trade him. They traded him to Philadelphia, a perennial loser at the time. When no active player testified on Flood’s behalf and the players union gave him luke-warm support he lost at the US Supreme Court (which for some reason sustained baseball’s continued exemption from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act).

The next major league baseball union boner was the player association’s refusal to allow testing for steroids when performance enhancing drugs grew in use in the late 1980s. The union’s principle was that this was an unreasonable search by ownership. The union’s mistake was that it meant that its players were destined to have to choose between: 1) taking a substance that has a numerous ill health effects, or 2) being at a major competitive disadvantage.

I am against the War on Drugs and think that all drugs should be legalized (including steroids). But I also think that employers should have the right to test for any and all drugs they determine a disadvantage for their business.

Unions are almost always a bad deal for Americans. But for some reason they get treated like motherhood and apple pie rather than the curse they are.

What does it mean to be “far-left” or “far-right”?

It is time to get rid of the two dimensional discussion of our politicians (left versus right). These time-honored descriptors fall well short of an accurate way to describe our candidates for President.

To simplify the matter I will describe the two major dimensions even though I know I am simplifying here and am trying to do this with little bias.

Fiscal conservative - is willing to aggressively cut government spending, would actively use the veto power to override promises to special interest groups and limit promises to future generations that have no financial viability. There is a scale on this dimension. And I would suggest that Republicans have been just as much big spenders as Democrats in the last couple of decades.

Fiscal liberal - is less concerned about out national debt, government spending, unfunded liabilities. Believe that America will find a way to meet its commitments via higher taxes. (Few politicians actually admit this belief, always stating that they are saving the government money while ramping up the spending.)

Social conservative - Prolife, Anti-gay rights, Supports an active military involvement around the world, Supports the War on Drugs, Pro Patriot Act.

Social liberal - Prochoice, Pro Gay Rights, Much smaller military involvement around the world, Legalize more drugs (starting with Marijuana), Against the Patriot Act.

Here are the best examples I can find for today's politicians and and how they might be described on a four corner map.

Gary Johnson - fiscal conservative/social liberal (North)
Michele Bachmann - fiscal conservative/social conservative (East)
Dennis Kucinich - fiscal liberal/social liberal (West)
Joe Lieberman - fiscal liberal/social conservative (South) - It is very hard to find a pure example here. George W Bush was clearly a big spender even though he never identified himself as such.

The media and the public do not know what is meant by “far right” and “far left”. Is the North position (Gary Johnson) far right or is the East position (Michele Bachmann) far right? These are two distinct points of view and they get lumped together. Is the West position (Dennis Kucinich) the far left or is Joe Lieberman the far left? In this case, Kucinich would more commonly get this label but it is just as unclear as the far right descriptor is.

I happen to be a Libertarian, a "Northerner" and a Gary Johnson supporter. But part of Johnson’s challenge is he gets labeled inarticulately as “far right” when no one really knows what that means.

The Department of Education?????

There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education. And the DOE makes things worse.

Mayor Bloomberg laying off teachers

Mayor Bloomberg is just one of many politicians and school boards that are laying off teachers across the country.

In today’s government-controlled education system, the primary tool for controlling costs is the layoff. If your only tool is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.

If elementary and high school education was chiefly performed by the private sector (even if it was funded via a voucher system paid for by government) we would have a much bigger variety of responses to financial difficulties. If we had thousands of different schools each with slightly different business models and all competing for students, we would have adaption in thousands of different ways that did not always come down to layoffs (although that would sure be one arrow in the quiver). This experimentation and adaption would lead to a better product.
One school might simply meet with the teachers and get broad agreement for a 10% across-the-board pay cut. Another school might ask the teachers to take on 10% more students. Another might ask each teacher to teach 10% more hours for the same pay.

But more importantly we would also see some fundamental experimentation that we rarely see in the public sector. One school might rely seriously on computer-assisted learning for more of the curriculum. Another might use master teachers to lecture (yes there still might be some of this) to thousands of students at a time via video links. Another might use non-credentialed seniors (that could provide grandmotherly encouragement) to the kind of love and attention that pays off in learning.

Some schools might limit their curriculum and leave important subjects like music, dance, and physical exercise to other institutions rather trying to bundle them into their school experience.

But our current union-led education system has one huge problem: It is poor at adapting. In a Darwinian world where schools and teaching methods that were not keeping pace would close, the problem would solve itself over time. That is why we need to turn back elementary and high school education to a competitive private sector. Our children would learn more and learn it faster. And even though government would still be footing the bill, the taxpayer would also save.

College grad lauded for graduating without working hard!

A very funny piece in The Onion.

"This month the University of Minnesota senior will become the first member of his family to graduate from college without ever having to work hard, apply himself, or expend more than a bare minimum of effort." Very funny piece if it was not so true.

" 'I don't think Daniel is taking his studies seriously,' Peterson's father says. 'When he comes home, I never see him crack a book. He's always out with his friends or on the Xbox. And now he's talking about maybe going to grad school. This is everything a father could want for his son,' he adds. 'I am so proud.' "

Proposed 28th Amendment

Received this via an email and have modified and edited ever so slightly.

No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay during retirement. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense.

Staffers of Congress and family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. Is there work so noble, that they get to walk away?

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. But it only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention. So can we enlist 3 more states?

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

Here is a proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

The value of American farmland?

Why should American farm land trade at a premium to farm land in Russia, South Africa or Argentina?

Well there are a number of factors today (although these may be shrinking). 1) What is the cost of labor to work the farm land? 2) What are the property taxes? 3) What is the level of economic stability in the area? You did’t want to invest in Cuban farm land right before Castro took control. 4) How close are the markets to your crops? If you are growing walnuts and the walnut market is on the other side of the planet then you will make less than if you are near your market. 5) What are the chances that the government will simply confiscate your property (think Venezuela’s confiscation of the property of Concoco-Phillips). 6) Do I have access to modern farm machinery to harvest my crop or do I have to rely entirely on human labor? 7) How dependable and economic is my water supply? 8) Can I use the best fertilizers for my crop?  8) What are the alternative values for the land? When farm land was being converted into subdivisions in the US, it lowered the supply and the minimum price for the land. 9) What are the state and federal income taxes on farm income? The lower these are the more valuable the land. 10) Is there an established support infrastructure for the crop you are growing? For example, if you are the only walnut orchard in the area then you have less opportunity for sharing hullers and sorters and this will likely drive your costs up. 11) How prosperous are the farmers in your region? Farmers are the usual buyers of available farmland and if they have been making and saving money then they can pay a higher price than if they are struggling to make money on their existing land.

Comparing the Tea Party to the Libertarian Party

I support thirteen of the fourteen Libertarian principles below and all three of the Tea Party principles. But I probably differ more with most Tea Party members who on average have far different views on the social issues than I do. But I still respect what the Tea Party is achieving and if they stick to those three principles exclusively, then they might even help elect a Republican President in 2012.

The Libertarian party is the third largest political party and is getting more attention these days. But we are decades away from seeing a Libertarian US President. Libertarians are frequently and incorrectly labeled as the “fringe right”, although with all the attention that the Tea Party is getting, most of the left’s hatred is directed at the Tea Party. I am not sure exactly what “right wing” means in America today but the Libertarian party is not the far right. Just for the record, here is the official platform of the American Libertarian Party. Just like the platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties, these principles are not universally supported by their members. Some of these issues should be left to state governments under the 10th Amendment, but that has not restricted the federal government from meddling in these matters before.

Few if any of the principles from the Libertarian platform are supported by a majority of Americans. On the other hand, only a few of their ideas have the support of less than 40% of Americans (hardly fringe). These estimated numbers are based on my own unscientific polling and I welcome suggestions to change these estimates (provided you have some better data to back up your story).

Here are the major stands of the Libertarians followed by a number like (40/60). The first figure (40) represents the percentage of Americans that support the Libertarians view on this issue and 60% do not support the Libertarian position. We do not allow for those on the fence.

1) Balance the Budget exclusively by "Cutting Expenditures Not by Raising Taxes" (50/50). I am fine with increasing a few taxes (gasoline, inheritance, consumption) as long as other taxes are reduced proportionately. This is the biggest issue that separates the left from the right in America today. The right starts with the notion of cutting expenditures first. The left starts with the idea of increasing taxes first. And recently this has meant that nothing gets done (that requires collaboration) other than raising the debt ceiling.

2) Pro-Choice (50/50). Not much to say about this one other than it is probably the most emotional issue of all. You won’t change my mind and I won’t change your mind - so let’s move on.

3) Pro Gay Rights (40/60). Right behind the abortion issue in level of emotion. Ditto on my interest in debating it.

4) Legalize Drugs (20/80). This just does not feel right to most Americans despite how much we are spending on law enforcement and imprisoning millions of those caught using and selling drugs. We are creating waves of violence not only in the United States but especially in Mexico. Again, I hate the idea of my family and friends using these drugs, but this is a family matter and I don’t want the government using force to impose these laws any more.

5) Legalize Assisted Suicide (10/90). This is one of those issues on which I won’t convince you and you won’t convince me. This is a low priority to me right now and I hope that by the time I am much older and my time comes, I get hit by a truck and don’t have to face a long, agonizing and expensive death.

6) Absolute Freedom of Religion (20/80). Libertarians oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion. Americans on average are fine with government support of their religion (i.e. tax deductions for your donation to your church); they just don’t want the other guy's religion (or lack of religion in the case of the school prayer debate) imposed on them. Look to some of the Middle Eastern countries as a model for religious intolerance and state-sponsored religions and it might scare you into promoting true freedom of religion.

7) Americans Right to Work without Joining a Union (50/50). This has been a hot topic lately but outside of Boeing’s new plant in South Carolina, it has been primarily an issue in the public sector.

8) Right to Bear Arms (50/50). With everything else happening in this country this matter has had very little air play lately.

9) Repeal all US Income Taxes (2/98). OK, this idea is the one idea that might qualify as "extreme". Granted , I am all for reducing our expenditures and the deficit but we have plenty of yesterday’s expenses and promises to work off before this comes close to being realistic.

10) Education should be provided by the Free Market (10/90). Everyone agrees that today’s public school systems are failing. Those on the left believe in bigger, and more expensive unionized programs to improve them. Most Libertarians (although this is not on their platform) favor a voucher system where the government pays via a voucher for all or most of the cost of a private education. Parents could then choose which private school to send their kids to. But alas not an idea that many Americans support and the left and unions absolutely hate this idea.

11) Health Care Should be Provided by the Free Market (40/60). Let’s come back to this one later as you might have read an opinion or two on the subject.

12) Put Retirement Planning and Funding back as the Responsibility of the Individual (20/80). - The idea of our social security system as a retirement program for seniors is so fully ingrained that few even question why the government ever took over this role to begin with. The system worked reasonably well as long as the average life expectancy was only 62 years and the ponzi funding didn't tax anyone too much. No one complained that we were not saving enough in the trust fund to pay for future obligations. It is a classic case of today’s (and yesterday’s) politicians being able to make promises that tomorrow’s politicians and public won’t be able to deliver. The inability for governments to manage this system responsibly should be proven by now. But those that advocate the system think we can solve it by increasing taxes on the rich.

13) Maintain a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression but stop foreign intervention (40/60). After our recent experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, the public is far less supportive of US military intervention than we were after the first Gulf War. In the first Gulf War, we got in and out quickly and looked very impressive in the process. We also did not attempt any nation-building and saw positive results in Kuwait very quickly.

14) Support Free Trade (50/50). Virtually all Americans support free trade when it results in their saving money at the market, but they hate the idea with a passion when free trade results in the loss of their job.

The Tea Party has a much better chance at success because they are officially only supporting three concepts and it is easier to get broad support for three principles than fourteen (except the general media hates them so much).

1) Fiscal Responsibility (80/20). Who can argue? The left doesn't bother to disagree with it; they either ignore it or propose to solve our financial woes with more taxes on business and the rich.

2) Constitutionally Limited Government (90/10). It is hard to find anyone that openly supports ignoring our constitution - until it comes down to the part of the constitution they don’t agree with (i.e the freedom of those you disagree having a right to say things that you view as “mean or hateful”, the right to bear arms, the 10th Amendment’s restriction on the Federal government’s authority to act on matters not given to the Federal government by the Constitution).

3) Free Markets (65/35). A generation ago, free enterprise and private business ownership were honored and respected by most Americans. Today more Americans openly support a socialist economic system than any time since the Great Depression.

But the Tea Party has three principles and three principles only. Their least popular stand (Free Markets) still has the support of 65% of Americans. So why is this group so vilified by the left and so denigrated by the general media? Perhaps they are hated because if the Tea Party stuck to these three principles and found a presidential candidate who narrowly focused on them, that candidate might unseat the left. We need a Republican presidential nominee that will focus 100% on the message: “Let’s get the financial basics on track during the next four years and leave the social engineering to the next President”. That candidate would stand a good chance.

Probably the most disappointing day in America since Obama’s inauguration

It was probably the most disappointing day in America since Obama’s inauguration (and Obama has given us many such days from which to choose). In one day this Administrations ruination of our labor, energy and health care markets all hit a new low.

The Supreme Court chose not to give expedited treatment to the question of whether Obamacare is unconstitutional. Obamacare regulates and impacts one sixth of the US economy. Many think that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to require every citizen to carry approved health care insurance. This is a decision with massive consequences (no matter how it is ultimately decided) and will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. So why mess around with the interim courts?

Shell Oil has cancelled an oil drilling project in Alaska because the EPA won’t grant it an air permit. They are writing off close to $4 billion and will evidently take their capital and skills and go to other countries and therefore our dependence on foreign oil will keep growing.

The National Labor Relations Board sued Boeing for its move to Charleston, South Carolina as illegal because it retaliates against labor. South Carolina is a right to work state and the fact that unions are weaker was undoubtedly a factor, but it was probably only one of several considerations. And since when can’t you open a new plant where you want to? So now the NLRB will be managing virtually every decision of our manufacturing industry. What are the chances that Boeing and other manufacturers next move is to take their new plants and jobs outside the US?

Oh yeh and business as usual today - not a damn thing was done about reducing our deficit or federal spending. Obama destroying America one day at a time.

A worthy place to work

"You can make a difference while making a profit. You needn’t work for Ben & Jerry’s. Any business that sells a good product at a fair price and treats its employees well is a worthy place to work." Dr. Marty Nemko

A new work-study job

"A new work-study job

Rather than spend an additional $160,000 per year for a second controller at Sacramento International Airport, which has only six scheduled arrivals or departures between midnight and 6 a.m., how about a lower cost alternative?

We hire California State University students struggling to make tuition at say $15 per hour ($33,000 per year) and put them in the tower.

They are free to study but if they hear the radio squawk and the controller fails to respond, they zap 'em with an FAA-supplied cattle prod.

Safety is enhanced, and a struggling student gets help to complete their studies. Don't you love a win-win?

– Roy W. Hecteman,

El Dorado Hills" (The Sacramento Bee Letters to the Editor April 16, 2011)



Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/16/3556715/letters-to-the-editor.html#ixzz1JiNqnZBF

Efficiency in Government?

How many parents pay their taxes and then send their kids to private schools (Obama #1)? I still challenge you to find a service that is more efficient or of higher quality than that provided by the private sector.

The emperor has no clothes.

Is there a chance that when we consider the US unfunded liabilities (debt plus promises made on Social Security and Medicare) that the phrase "the emperor has no clothes" applies?

Our debt ceiling

The left says that our unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling is a sign that we will default on our debts. Is it possible that the outside world would see this as a sign that we are going to borrow less? I have leant businesses money before and once I leant them money I would generally prefer they borrow no more. Once I have leant money I want the borrower to focus on how to pay me back.

Capital gains taxes?

Why are long-term capital gains & dividends taxed at 15% while short-term capital gains are taxed at up to 35% today. If I make money on a stock and sell it a year and a day later I pay 15% in federal long-term capital gains taxes. But if I sell it 2 days earlier I pay up to 35% in federal short-term capital gains taxes.

Why is slow moving capital preferred to quick moving capital?

Older Americans feel discriminated against in the job market

I am 60 and not looking for a job. But I have friends and family that are in my age group and trying to land a good job.

Many older American workers think there is discrimination against them. I generally disagree. Here are a few advantages that younger workers have over their parents (in broad generalities):
1) Younger workers are more willing to move to an area where job prospects are better than where they live;
2) Younger job applicants are better at learning new technology than older workers (on average);
3) Younger workers are more willing to change professions since they don’t have so many years invested in one industry or profession; they are more willing to adapt.
4) Anti-discrimination laws intended to protect older workers make it more expensive to fire the unproductive but old worker.
5) Older Americans have higher health care costs, so every time I hire an older American I increase my health care insurance costs.

But older Americans have a few advantages as well:
1) Older Americans are slightly more loyal to their employers than their
parents;
2) The fact that older Americans are less likely to fly the coop, makes any investment in their training likely to result in an employer for a longer period.

Many of the efforts to protect and subsidize older workers have in fact hurt their prospects in the marketplace for jobs.

Here is my suggestion for older workers. Start your own business; hire yourself.

Twitter is an amazing example of exponential growth.

Twitter is an amazing example of exponential growth.

But there is exponential and there is exponential; T power of X can be the power of 2 or the power of 5 - makes a big difference.

The number of users was about 190 million in June 2010 and at that time there were about 65 million tweets a day. Today Twitter is adding about half a million new accounts per day.
But the other growth factors are the number of tweets per account which is growing. On March 11, 2011, 177 million tweets were sent. And with the increasing use of mobile devices to tweet and search why should this slow down?

But this is only part of the challenge. Because each twitter account is “following” more accounts. One can unilaterally follow another twitter, and a new twitter may only follow a few other accounts over time they may follow thousands of other accounts.

So this growth is happening at a much faster rate of growth than the rate of change for the decreasing cost of technology and the increasing speed of processing. So will it all blow up some day?

The Weinberger Doctrine

This doctrine was publicly disclosed by U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger on November 28, 1984 in a speech entitled "The Uses of Military Power" delivered before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.


The Weinberger doctrine:
1) The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2) U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3) U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4) The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5) U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6) The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

But of course Obama had a better idea in Libya.

Seniors - make sure to set aside a few dollars for your kids!

When our seniors die (I am over 55 so I guess I qualify) we sometimes leave some money to our children and grandchildren. If you have no money but lot’s of debt then this debt is not passed on to your heirs. Your heirs get all the upside and no downside.

But alas that is not the way it works with the public debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren. According to Usdebtclock the total federal unfunded liabilities (debt, unfunded Social Security and Medicare promises) total $113 trillion dollars (and increases every day). For you in California, New York and other spendthrift states this does not count the unfunded liabilities of your states.

We now have approximately 65 million retirees. So I therefore urge every retiree in America to set aside $1.74 million ($113 trillion divided by 65 million retirees) to your heirs to specifically be used to pay off their share of the national IOUs. Do your part.

Union Thug Plan For America

This former union thug has a different agenda than most Americans. Here it for yourself:

“It seems to me that we’re in a moment where we need to figure out in a much more, through direct action, much more concrete way how we really are trying to disrupt an create uncertainty for capital, for how corporations operate. And it may sound like that’s a crazy thing that in a moment of weakness we could deal with it, but the thing about a boom and bust economy, it is actually incredibly fragile, because it’s not based on real way, well, it’s based on gambling and all of that. And so there are actually extraordinary things that we could do right now that would start to de, destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.” Stephen Lerner Former SEIU Official (Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a labor union representing about 1.8 million workers in over 100 occupations in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.)

I tend to discount conspiracies. But this whackos agenda is pretty clear.

Hugo Chavez On Capitalism

‎
"I have always said that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, and finished off the planet." Hugo Chavez, 3/22/10

At least Hugo is candid about his views on capitalism. Why won't some of our leaders say what they really think about capitalism versus socialism.

Assassination versus war?

Wouldn't assassination be cheaper (in the lives of citizens of that country and the lives of our armed forces) than an all-out war?

Humanitarian Purposes

Is Libya only about "humanitarian" purposes? If so how about Bahrain, Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, Yemen, Viet Nam and Saudi Arabia?

Obama - Genius then; Idiot now!

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Senator Barack Obama (D) Illinois. Genius then - Idiot now.

Government Debt Levels around the World

One of the most frightening pieces I have read about government debt levels around the world. Makes one want to hunker down and get ready for financial tsunamis.

"Our Constitution is not a body of law to govern the people; it was formulated to govern the government, to make government the servant and not the master of the people." – William F. Jasper

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. – Milton Friedman

Arizona Governor VS: Phoenix Suns Owner

Just got this story from a friend.....

The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes AZ's new immigration laws. Arizona 's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:

"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were
sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the
gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink?
And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?"

- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer


Try going to any other country without ID.

Stop collecting race data

In California Non-Hispanic Whites only represented 40% of the population during the 2010 census. Hispanics are White under this arcane reporting system so we collect data on Hispanic-Whites and Non-Hispanic Whites. So my question: Is it now time to remove the term “minority” from our lexicon? California has no “majority”. Perhaps California could change the nomenclature to “preferred minorities” and “others”.

Or how about this for an idea. Why don’t we stop using tax dollars to collect this data. I for one do not really care what your race is.

I have previously asked how we fairly label everyone.

So I propose that we shut down all the race profiling, quotas, set-asides, government contract "programs", affirmative action programs. Let’s hire, promote,accept for college and give contracts to the ones that are most qualified. Let’s stop this institutional “racial, sexual and religious profiling” and treat all people based on their own individual merits.

But alas I admit that I am in the minority on this point.

Waiting for Superman

Just finished watching Waiting for Superman. The teachers’ unions hate the movie. But most importantly it is hard to imagine not supporting a voucher system where parents send their kids to the school of their choice and use a publicly financed voucher to pay most or all of the tuition.

Teachers’ unions are just part of the problem. And charter schools are not universally successful. But we do see that the best schools with excellent teachers can do wonders in getting results even for kids that are poor or initially behind their grade level.

What is clear to see is that big government institutions (large school districts and the US Department of Education) have produced lousy results. How can the private sector do any worse?

The Left hates this movie. But please watch it and make up your own mind.

Taxes on Gasoline

I am a Libertarian except in a few cases like taxes on gasoline. Many politicians are asking for a tax holiday so that folks back home will not be hurt so badly by the increase in the price of gasoline. But now is the time to do the opposite. Let's start with at least a $.50 a gallon (and I am OK with a tax per suggestions of friends of as much as $2.00per gallon) on gasoline.

We are importing two out of three barrels of oil into the US and this makes us too vulnerable to the kind of price shocks we are facing today. We are not only vulnerable to the kind of economic shocks we are about to feel but as a result we might even be sending our troops into harm’s way trying to stabilize these foreign oil sources.

Protecting white males in the US

Interesting video. I have stated before that we should eliminate race in the question of hiring, firing and scholarships. What is an “African American”? Please look back at my blog about how we fairly “label” everyone. This race labeling does not work today.

All union rights have been created through legislation.

The prevailing thought is that unions are good and that they enhance fairness and increase prosperity. Most politicians would rather be caught in a compromising scandal with Charlie Sheen than publicly advocate reducing the power of unions.

Instead, politicians vociferously support the union interests even if it means bigger deficits. Former New Jersey Governor , Jon Corzine once stood at a union gathering and said: “I will fight to get you a good contract.” He said publicly what many others only say (and frequently say) behind closed doors. The unions support the election of the politician and the politician then fights for a better contract for the union.

All union rights have been created through legislation (state and federal) and their power can be reduced via legislation as well. There is nothing in our constitution that creates union rights. I advocate their constitutional right to assembly (in their non-working hours), their right to free speech, and even their right to not show up for work (as long as they can be fired for dishonest sick days). But governments and private companies should be free to either negotiate with these groups or not. But lately the right to collective bargaining is being heralded as a constitutional guarantee.

So we have several decades of union strength based on the power they were given in various laws. Our schools treat the union movement as a deity and kids are taught about the wonderful benefits of unions. Kind of self-serving isn’t it?

Today the media consistently equates the act of demonizing unions with demonizing the underlying work or the workers. But I can and I do respect the role of a teacher, policeman or firefighter without supporting their right to have more powerful union rights.

In the 1930’s unions were a force for worker safety improvements, which was definitely needed. That was great but that was then. Today this safety function is managed by OSHA (at the federal and state level), and workers compensation legislation. And unions spend few of their resources working on safety issues today.

Today there is primarily one mission of any union: “Give me, give me!”

The unions actually try to make the argument that they help organization efficiency. Does anyone really believe this? Clearly they can inflate wages and compensation to the benefit of their workers. But there is no free lunch. Someone is paying for it and it that someone is all of the rest of us that are not in that union.

In summary:

Unions distort wages at the expense of everyone else and they hurt the productivity of the country.

Seniority systems reduce the incentive for a worker to give his best and make it difficult to keep the best worker when the work force needs to be trimmed.

Unions put private businesses into bankruptcy. The jobs gradually shift overseas.

Unions support liberal candidates that feel no responsibility to negotiate hard with them.
Unions delay adjustments to work rules and compensation as the market demands. They tend to dig in so hard that they drive a business into bankruptcy rather than rapidly facilitating the necessary change. In the private sector the union inflexibility is self-correcting because their victims simply close up shop. But in government and other monopolies (gas and electric companies), the unions gather strength and their employees receive a bigger share of the pie than their non-union neighbors.

The unions make changing anything hard; they require expensive and drawn out negotiations. Instead of making 25 small adjustments during a month, the union requires an expensive process to change a few things during a year-long negotiation. By the time an lenghty negotiation with a private company is completed the company is frequently out of business and their products are being manufactured in China.

Is it any wonder that union membership has dropped so dramatically in the private sector? They simply don’t work well.

Union stats overstate the numbers in the private sector

The difference in the percentage of union members in the public sector versus the private sector is even greater than reported. Recently the public sector percentage has been reported as 36% (it is actually over 41% in the state and local government sector) versus 7% in the private sector.

But the 7% figure in the private sector is inflated. First, the federal government in its bailout of General Motors and Chrysler cut deals that strengthened the position of their unions. If the companies had gone into a traditional bankruptcy without federal support they likely would have been reincarnated as non-union businesses.

Then we have government construction projects that require union labor. In 2009, Obama signed an executive order that allowed federal agencies to require that contractors on large federal projects be unionized.

In other words many of the 7% of “private” workers that are reported as union are really quasi-government.

But alas it is like arguing against apple pie and motherhood. A politician today would rather speak out in support of Muammar al-Gaddafi than say publicly: “The time for unions has passed”.

Today’s economic theory is based on a former “closed economy”.

Much of today’s economic theory is founded on a “closed economy” in which the US operated decades ago. In the good old days, when the government stimulated consumer confidence it resulted in consumer purchases that were usually filled with US manufacturing and production. But today when the government stimulates consumer spending it translates into additional production in China or Japan and only occasionally in the US.

And our government tends to borrow for this stimulation.

So we are using yesterday’s outdated tricks in a different economic landscape.

America’s weakness is not in borrowing, spending and consuming (we are gold medal champion consumers). Our problem is producing enough to meet this growing consumption. We are challenged in producing enough products that the rest of the world wants to buy.

Should we stop subsidizing consumption and start emphasizing production? We could do that via tax treatment, public messages and strive to produce more products that we can sell to the rest of the world.

Dear Abby - My husband has a long record of money problems.

"Dear Abby,



He runs up huge credit-card bills and at the end of the month, if I try to pay them off, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money. He says pay the minimum and let our kids worry about the rest, but already we can hardly keep up with the interest.

Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more.

Also, he has gotten religious. One week he hangs out with Catholics and the next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and the next he's with Muslims.

Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before anyone can be in the same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath.

It's just so horribly creepy! Can you help?

Signed, Lost in DC"
------------------------------------------------------
Dear Lost:
Stop whining, Michelle. You can divorce the jerk any time you want. You're getting to live in the White House for free, travel the world, and have others pay for everything for you. The rest of us are stuck with the bastard for two more years!

Abby

(received from a friend via email)

Cutting spending during an economic downturn

“It’s not a good idea to cut spending during an economic downturn” is the prevailing view from the left. Well what if you were in Greece or Ireland and nobody woul lend you money anymore? They were clearly in a downturn and they had to either cut spending or experience chaos. It is a very inconvenient time for them to cut their spending but they no longer had a choice. They either had to cut spending or go bankrupt.

At that same time our voters are saying “don’t cut my Medicare, don’t cut my Social Security. Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that guy behind the tree.” Time to make the cuts we need to make!

The Republicans are letting us down.

Since making cuts on the House of Representatives expense budget of about $25 million per year - nothing. We continue to spend $4.6 billion A DAY more than we take in. So in 184 years this $25 million per year will have paid for one day’s additional debt. In other words if we find another 67,160 such cuts we will have balanced budget (if we do it now). It will take deeper cuts if we wait another month.

There is much talk in the media about “default” if we don’t increase the debt limit. Virtually no discussion about actually making cuts today. One thing is certain, if we keep the current system of always increasing the debt ceiling, we are guaranteed to default in the future.

It is like a family with $50,000 in debt limit on their credit cards and reaching that limit. If a bank will give them just one more credit card, they will have time to turn things around. Except they never do until they run out of people that will lend to them. They keep facing the same problem each time they reach their increased credit limit. And then at some point, the family needs to borrow simply in order to pay the minimum payments on their credit cards.

The only difference is that our government sets it own credit limit. Our national credit limit can be increased indefinitely until no one will lend us money anymore.

The Republicans have been all talk; they have cut a measly $25 million. Why not cut one little program (say the subsidies to public television, public radio, or the National Endowment for the Arts) today and find one other cut tomorrow and get at the tough and thankless job of cutting each and every day until we have the spending under control? Everyone is talking about needing more time to make the hard cuts that are needed. But the deadline is the means that the Republicans have to insist on fundamental change - NOW. The Republicans need to step up to the plate and block the increase in the debt ceiling.

But alas, it ain’t gonna happen. All talk and no action.

Some of the sloppiest reporting seen in years at the NY Times

The NY Times article is entitled: “Record Level of Stress Found in College Freshmen”. The opening paragraph says: “The emotional health of college freshmen — who feel buffeted by the recession and stressed by the pressures of high school — has declined to the lowest level since an annual survey of incoming students started collecting data 25 years ago.”

But the referenced study never produced any evidence supporting these conclusions. The study did not measure the 200,000 participant’s actual mental health. It simply asked each participant to rate themselves on their own emotional health (as they perceived it in comparison to other college students). In 1985 64% of students rated themselves as having above average emotional health. But in the most recent study, only 52% of the students rated themselves above average.

Since exactly 50% of the group is above average, the more recent study showed that as a group they were better estimators, more realistic, and understood statistics, logic and the written word better than the class of students from 1985. But alas the NY Times writer and editor did not score so well.

Let’s not waste the upcoming debt-ceiling deadline!

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” – Alexander Tytler

Don’t raise the debt ceiling! A promise to cut our expenditures later by politicians is like a crack addict telling you that he will quit tomorrow if he gets just one more hit today. Our politicians including many Republicans will argue that this will shut down the federal government as if they are only creative in ways to spend more not spend less.

So let’s get to work today on cutting the budget and remember that this kind of dramatic change always gets finished at the last minute anyway. The necessary cuts will be hard work and everybody will hate at least one of them. But we won’t get there if we do it $35 million at a time, the sole cut that has been made by this Congress so far this year when they cut the House office budget by 5%.

“The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 BC

Our politicians (because they take such heat from their voters, public employee unions, special interests, grandma and grandpa and the media) are incapable of making the tough choices (which means cutting expenses and entitlements) without a time limit. In Greece and Ireland no tough cuts were made until they had a deadline. So let’s not waste ours.

Look at what just happened in Illinois where the state legislature increased their state income tax from 3% to 5% this week without a single spending cut to public employee union compensation. Our politicians (including those from the Tea Party) don’t want to make the most important cuts (to Social Security) because once they make those entitlement cuts the outcry will make the recent Tea Party rallys look timid in comparison. And the protests will be from both the left and the right; everyone is OK with cutting the other guy’s entitlements – just don’t touch theirs. As Russell Long first said: “Don’t tax you; don’t tax me; tax that guy behind the tree!”

So here is my suggestion for how to start:
1) All Federal employees would have their pay cut by 5%. For earnings above $80,000 per year they would have an additional 5% cut and for earnings about $150,000 there would be yet another 5% (for a total 15% cut for earnings above $150,000).
2) All Federal pension programs are frozen at the benefit levels that have been earned for work already done and going forward there are no incremental pension benefits. Everyone gets what they have been promised but we stop promising what we know we can not deliver. Once we get the Federal Budget balanced, all federal pension programs are replaced with a 401k type program where a fixed percentage is paid as compensation and then managed by the individual.
3) Repeal Obamacare.
4) Social Security and Medicare benefits are immediately moved back by one year for those from age 61-65, by two years for those between the ages of (60-61), and so forth until those (57 and younger) have their benefits moved back by five years. It means everyone is going to have to work a few more years to compensate for the unfunded promises that we have made in the past. “The Social Security system did not begin as an attempt to sabotage people's ability to plan for retirement, but it has worked out that way. The politicians who originally planned the system probably had no idea how it would turn out. But today's politicians know the system is rotted, and yet they refuse to make the changes necessary to free the American people from it. Instead, they make it worse.” – Ed Clark 1980 Libertarian presidential candidate, A New Beginning
5) Reduce the salaries for all members of Congress by 50% effective immediately and cancel all their other pension and health care benefits going forward. “Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
6) Remove our troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan and South Korea immediately and bring them home. “We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.” – Benjamin Harrison
7) Stop all foreign aid. “Government-to-government foreign aid promotes statism, centralized planning, socialism, dependence, pauperization, inefficiency, and waste. It prolongs the poverty it is designed to cure. Voluntary private investment in private enterprise, on the other hand, promotes capitalism, production, independence, and self-reliance.” – Henry Hazlit
8) Stop 100% of our agricultural subsidies. “There are many farm handouts; but let's call them what they really are: a form of legalized theft. Essentially, a congressman tells his farm constituency, ‘Vote for me. I'll use my office to take another American's money and give it to you.’ – Walter Williams, economist and syndicated columnist
9) Close the Department of Energy.
10) Close the Department of Education.
11) Close down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
12) Immediately outlaw all public employee union representation in our Federal, State and Local governments.
13) Provide for state bankruptcy or receivership to allow the states to make the fundamental changes they need to make. “Bankruptcies and losses concentrate the mind on prudent behavior.” – Allan H. Meltzer
14) And even as an advocate of fewer taxes I would suggest four additional revenue sources – a) $.50 a gallon tax on gasoline (to simply reduce our dependence on foreign oil) b) sell citizenship rights to the US to the top 10,000 bids c) phase out the homeowners tax deduction over 10 years d) phase out the tax deductions for donations to non-profits, charities and churches over five years.

And let’s do this by March 1, 2011. We can’t solve a multi-trillion dollar problem with an occasional $35 million cut. We need broad swaths of cuts of hundreds of billions and we need these cuts now. The Republican party has promised fundamental change and if they stick together and don’t agree to increasing the debt ceiling, the debt ceiling won’t change.

Even if we get a big part of this done in exchange for increasing the federal debt ceiling by for example $300 billion we can start to apply the pressure we need to get the “dirty” work done. I see little chance of actually witnessing these suggestions implemented, and guess what? The debt ceiling will be extended by at least one trillion dollars along with promises that we will cut spending “soon” and before we hit the next debt limit. We will then watch history repeat itself, because nothing will happen until at least the next time we bump up against the new and improved debt ceiling. And then the argument will be the same thing all over again that if we don’t then increase the national debt ceiling we will have a chaos. So why not fight it out now and make the cuts we need to make before burning through another trillion with nothing to show for it.

The debt ceiling could be increased by a much smaller number (say $100 billion) along with a set of smaller cuts. Then we will be right back at this next month rather than a year from now. But our government hates the kind of pressure and attention that comes from actually delivering what one promises. They figure that a year from now everyone will have forgotten who said what, and they are usually correct. So why take the heat again in just another month.

Does anyone really think that if we extend the debt ceiling now without cuts we will follow through with big cuts before we face the next debt ceiling? Get serious!

“Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt.” - Herbert Hoover

The fastest growing university in the US

What is the fastest growing university in the US? Probably one that you have never heard of: Western Governors University (WGU). They have about 23,000 full time students and this is up from 14,000 in June, 2009.

It is a non-profit, accredited, strictly online institution that is providing far better value in college education than the college establishment. They have used technology to reduce the cost of college where most colleges and universities have typically used technology as an excuse to increase costs and tuition.

You won’t find interesting (but impractical) majors where graduates rarely get a related job (like Sociology, Ethnomusicology, Modern Dance, Psychology). WGU sticks to their knitting with a few areas of study (Education, Business, Health Care and IT) where graduates can find jobs.

The cost is only $5,800 per 12 month period and for that a student can take as many classes as she can handle and complete. Once you complete the work and pass the exams, you can move on to the next course. On average their students complete their degrees in just 30 months at a total cost of less than $15,000 for a four-year degree.

The average age of their student is 36 and most of them have families and a full time job. It clearly takes more discipline to complete this kind of a program and so they have fewer students right out of high school.

Each student meets (online) with a mentor at least every other week, to confer about the course work, and also discuss how the material applies to the real world. Even the exams are taken from home via a clever online testing methodology.

WGU mentors don't get tenure that guarantees them a job, nor are they encouraged to publish academic papers or conduct research. And lo and behold they don’t have unaffordable public pensions and benefits packages that are out of line with the private sector. But the faculty by and large can work from their homes as well.

One Teacher’s College Graduate said “I would have never been able to attend a university and follow my dreams if it wasn’t for WGU. I work full time and have three kids; online schooling was my only option if I wanted to stay involved in my children’s life.”

This is the kind of revolution we need from our college and university system. We need to drastically reduce its cost (not just slow down the increases) and we need to remove the subsidies for the study of fun, esoteric but impractical subjects like Greek, Art History, Gender Studies, and Recreation Management. My congratulations go to WGU.

College sports nicknames

We might need congress to intervene on this one. My proposition is that no sports league should allow more than one team to have the same sports nickname. But the Southeastern Conference has the LSU Tigers and the Auburn Tigers. And they frequently play the Clemson Tigers from nearby South Carolina. I find this confusing.

The nickname "Tigers" is the 2nd most used moniker (32 schools) after the Bulldogs (41 colleges). It is time for some imagination here. And absent that how about copying one of those unique names already used by others like:

TCU Hornfrogs
UC Irvine Anteaters
UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs
Haveford Black Squirrels
Connecticut College Camels
Long Beach State Dirtbags (baseball)
Houston (Clear Lake) Egrets
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology Hardrockers
St. Johns (Mn) Johnnies (one of my favorites - but are they named after me or the porta-potties?)
Whittier College Poets
Heidelberg University (Tiffin, Ohio) Student Princes
Idaho Vandals
Akron Zips
Jamestown Jimmies (named after my brother I think)

It is time for Auburn, Clemson and LSU to break out with new nicknames.