Government Schools

Posted on September 11, 2011 | Leave a comment

I agree that children need to be educated.  I further agree that we need to tax the general public to pay for this education.

What I can’t understand is why the government feels that only the government is qualified to teach kids.

Why is that?

Leave a comment

Posted in Education, Politics: National

Tagged

The President’s Jobs Speech

Posted on September 10, 2011 | 5 comments

Last night the President gave a speech.  In it, he described what his plan to help our economy is.  In my opinion, he needed to accomplish several critical items.

  • The speech would HAVE to represent something new.

The nation has grown weary of the same language and same ideas that this administration has pout forth to date.  What Obama is sellin’, no one is buyin’.  No one believes that spending more and more money that we don’t have on programs like roads-bridges, schools and hospitals is the answer to our nation’s problems.  I think that we knew this back when.  Back when Obama first recommended this strategy.  We simultaneously knew AND hoped.  It’s why none of us are very surprised that we are today where we were 3 years ago.

  • The speech would HAVE to create the feeling that the administration was willing to compromise with the Republicans.

Since the day he’s taken office, think “The Office Of The President Elect” bullshit, Obama has made it clear that he will do it his way.  He’s commented that “I won” during negotiations.  His actions, and quite frankly his naiveté, have demonstrated that if he only uses more words and passion, he’ll succeed in swaying his opposition.  Personally I suspect that this is what him positions of prestige in the worlds in which he has lived.  In the Halls of Ivy I feel that rhetoric and Grand Ideals are the coin of the realm.  Not actions and results.

Thoughts, not measurable metrics, are what these men trade on.

  • The speech would HAVE to energize America and Americans.

It didn’t.  It was a yawner.  Everything from the “Pass it Right Away” nonsense to the worn out “pay their fair share” nonsense, the feeling was an overwhelming, “been there, done that” take away.  This didn’t move the soul.  This speech didn’t reach into the heavens and grab you just right there.  This speech was more of a lecture.  Something that you wanted to be over, not hear more of.

For the first time, Obama’s skill in oration failed him.  If I didn’t know better, it was as if even he didn’t believe it.

Rather than be any of these things, it was none of them.  He didn’t present anything new, bi-partisan or energizing.  You could have taken random 35 second clips from any of his other speeches, strung ’em together for 34 minutes and done just as well – even better.  At least during those speeches, Obama himself believed what he was saying.

The facts are this:

  1. Government trades in power.  No government can invest appropriately because too many people owe other people money and favors.  True free acts of investment can not be made.
  2. Government doesn’t earn anything.  If the government would like to invest in segment A of the economy, it must first confiscate from segment B of the economy.  And it sucks at even that.  It’s less than a 1 – 1 shift.
  3. The wealthy pay more than their “fair share”.  The wealthy pay more of a share of the tax than they earn as a share of the income.  In fact, there are net “earners” of the Federal Income Tax system.
  4. We already allocate money for roads and bridges.  We tax such things as we think are necessary to care for repairs and new build outs.  Why we need to allocate NEW money for the is beyond me.
  5. It is not the role of the Federal Government to build schools.  THAT is the role of the individual school boards.

This speech failed.  It failed to provide new ideas, failed to provide any hope of bi-partisan agreement and it failed to energize even the giver of the speech.

I’ll leave you with this detail.  Obama implored lawmakers to “pass it right away”.  Yet he couldn’t be bothered to present anyone with the bill itself, saying only that he would deliver something a week from Monday.

Indeed.

5 Comments

Posted in Economy, Government, Politics: National

Tagged , ,

Thoughts on Minimum Wage

Posted on September 9, 2011 | 5 comments

So, my son belongs to a dojo down the street next to the pizza joint.  On the other side is the dance studio that my daughter belongs to.

As I bounced back and forth tonight, my son to karate and my girl to dance that I noticed the Sensei mopping the mats and the studio owner sweeping her floors.  I asked each, individually, why they had to dedicate time for such tasks.  My question:

“Why don’t you just hire one of the kids to do this?”

Their answer?  Each of them?

“It costs too much to pay someone to do this; it’s just easier to do it myself.”

And so it is that 2-3-4 kids who might have had the chance to step on that first rung of the job ladder are out of luck.  If I know kids, they don’t need the money, they need the experience.  The experience of showing up on time, listening to a boss and meeting expectations.

I started working when I was 10.  My dad got me a paper route on my birthday.  I’ve been pulling a paycheck for the last 30+ years.  I graduated high school, graduated college and have been a member of the work force for more than 3 decades.  And it is THAT experience that has allowed me to succeed to the extent that I have.

So, live with the fact that when you price labor out of the market, they will not be mobilized and you will lose years of experience.

You know where I stand.  Explain where you stand.

5 Comments

Posted in Economics

Tagged

Obama Name Calling

Posted on September 8, 2011 | 11 comments

So, I’ve been pretty clear in my feelings toward our Gentle Leader.  I’ve been very clear that I think Mr. Obama is what we now call a Socialist.  While not strictly accurate by definitions, the word seems to have changed in meaning over time.  I do not think that he wants the state to own the means of production, but he most certainly wants to redistribute wealth.  Further, he has no fear of forcing corporations to follow edicts of his government.

Which has led me to calling Obama a fascist.  While I understand that many many people incorrectly identify fascism with the violent racist militarism we have seen in recent history, the real meaning of fascism is more akin to state control of economic forces.

However, while all of that may or may not be true, I have never read the books Obama penned himself.  I assume that in these books the President represents himself fairly.  And, I think, without having read even page 1, that he goes back to times when he was a young man.

I wanna keep an ongoing thought experiment as I read these chapters.  I wanna see what Obama HIMSELF says about what he feels.

Perhaps we can lay to rest whether or not the man is a capitalist or a fascist.  Or a socialist.

Or a whatever-ist.

11 Comments

Posted in Fun, Politics: National

Tagged , ,

Global Warming and Science

Posted on September 7, 2011 | 12 comments

I was watching the debate tonight and heard the questioning surrounding the science of global warming.  Admittedly I’m biased, but it sounded to me like the moderators were laughing inside as they were questioning the candidates about global warming.

The questions were led with the fact that scientists overwhelmingly support the fact that mankind is contributing to the warming of the globe.  Now, given that fact, do you reject that science?

It’s the Left’s trick question.

The words aren’t what they’re asking.  What they are asking is:  “Do you deny catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming?”  But the questions are always phrased in such a way as to mask the true nature of the question.

For example, if I asked you this question, how would you respond?

If you were to piss in the ocean, would the level of the ocean by higher than it would have been had you not decided to piss in the ocean?

Who can deny the science?  When you add “water” to a body of water, can you argue that the volume of water actually decreased?  Certainly not.

The question should be:

If you were to piss in the ocean, would the level of he ocean be higher by any meaningful measure?

If THAT question were asked, the answers would make more sense.

And so it is with global warming.  Any reasonable person would argue that we DO contribute to the warming of the planet.  However, the degree to which we contribute is not of such significance that we need to take the actions that the far-left would ask us to take.

12 Comments

Posted in Global Warming

Tagged ,

Thoughts on the Debate

Posted on September 7, 2011 | 5 comments

The Republicans are still going at it as I type.  However, I think that tonight marks the beginning of the end for Santorum and Bachmann.  I further think that Gingrich will begin to rise and Romney and Perry even out.

5 Comments

Posted in Elections 2012

Tagged , , , , ,

Obama’s Speech: What He Should Say September 8, 2011

Posted on September 7, 2011 | 2 comments

Tomorrow, President Obama is going to speak in front of Congress.  There are things that he ought to say.

He should say that he is going to work to create an environment where people feel comfortable hiring other people.  In order to say this with a believable demeanor, I certainly hope that he has brought in people who hire people and worked to figure out what hiring people would take.

For example, if people who hire people say that they would hire more people if it cost less to hire people, he should then say that he will make it less expensive for people to hire people.

Pure and simple.

After he says that, Mr. Obama should say that he will allow companies that wanna hire people to, you know, actually hire them.  He could do this by allowing Boeing to open a factory in South Carolina.

For my non-Socialist Liberal friends, this is what we mean when we say that Obama is a socialist-fascist.  The President is preventing a private company from opening a factory where they want to.  In the United States.  He’s doing this because he doesn’t approve of the affiliation of the people that might be hired.

Now, after we make it cheaper and legal to hire people, the President should acknowledge that passing legislation that makes it impossible to estimate the cost of hiring people prevents the people who hire people from hiring people.  In other words, the President should declare that he is going to halt the implementation of his health care legislation.

What he WILL say:

The President won’t, of course, say the things that he SHOULD say.  Rather, he’ll continue his march down the campaign trail.  In fact, he signaled his intention Monday when he addressed labor groups in Detroit.

The President is going to call on Republicans to set aside party and do what’s right for America.  He’s gonna call on us all to help him pass him legislation that will reward big labor by initiating infrastructure spending.  He’ll call this repairing our roads and bridges.

Additionally, President Obama will continue to claim that the current economic conditions that we face were not created in 3 years and therefore, won’t be solved in three years.  The theme that the past decade of poor policy decisions will permeate the President’s campaign rhetoric from now until the election.  Tacking onto this will be the gentle and subtle reminder that “more of the same”, or a “return to the failed policies” is a recipe for disaster.

Make no mistake.  Obama should take this opportunity to lead.

He won’t.

It’ll be an exercise in a middle manager casting blame for his own bad decisions.

2 Comments

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics: National

Tagged

Extreme

Posted on September 5, 2011 | Leave a comment

Some time ago a friend and I were debating politics, life and people.  Wonderful conversations these, some of my most favorite.  Wonderful times.

This friend and I find ourselves at opposite ends of the spectrum.  I enjoy calling myself Libertarian and he Liberal; very Liberal.  And while I agree with his views, mostly, on the tender mercies of the social issues, we are in direct contradiction when it comes to things fiscal, economic or, strangely, on Liberty.

It was the topic of Liberty, actually an extension of what I think Liberty is, just the other night.  And, as so often as these conversations do, they begin rather pleasant and easy going and, unless cared for, degenerate into me in my corner and he in his.  So, this time, I asked that we stop and consider each others claim.

See, I see Liberty being extended to the person.  And, I see personhood being established somewhere between conception and actual live birth.  I’m open to the debate about the when, but really, I don’t think that’s the critical point.  The critical point is that you get someone to acknowledge that life begins sometime before actual birth.

Anyway, we were discussing abortion and I declared that I am pro-Liberty.  That is, before life is established, abortion should be at the discretion of the mother.  And after life is established, abortion is at the discretion of the mother is some cases:

  1. Life or health risk of the mother or the child.
  2. Cases where the mother is the victim of a crime.

As the conversation continued, we moved past this distinction and began exploring the right-wing nuts that refused to listen to any rational thought and held to a “no abortion ever for any reason period” position.  At which point I realized that I thought my friend was debating the wing nuts; not me.

So I asked him, “Given that there are extreme positions on the right – no abortion ever – what is the extreme position on the Left?”

His answer?

“There isn’t one”.

Blink.

Blink.

Now, when debating an individual about a topic and your going in position is that there are extremists, on YOUR side, that you disagree with, it normally sends a signal that you are somewhat moderate.  But when you’re debating partner refuses to acknowledge the same, it sends the signal that they are not; no matter what they claim they are.

Now, to be fair, my friend does not, at least I think does not, claim to be moderate.

Anyway, when faced with this interesting dilemma that extremism only exits on the “other side” I asked him a question that would cause his Liberal tendencies to collide.

“What if the mother decided to abort because the baby was black”?

Or disabled.

Or gay.

Or a girl.

Eugenics, it seemed, was the extreme.

In this case a person has to determine what to defend.  And in this case, the ugly ugly consequences of a genetic means test outranked the ability of a mother to choose.

Now, to be sure, in the specific I agreed with my friend on this.  I would think it horrible if someone decided to abort a child simply based on the fact that she was a she.  However, I am sure that our rational behind that conclusion would be very very different.

And I find THAT fascinating.

Anyway, I was able to make my point.  That there were extremes, on both sides, that we weren’t willing to go.  And just because I happened to add “Or poor” to that list didn’t make me any more vile than, well, anyone else who objects to abortion based on sex.

Leave a comment

Posted in Liberty, Politics: National

Tagged , , , ,

Moderate

Posted on September 5, 2011 | 1 comment

There’s been much talk in the last few days weeks months years about the need to compromise.  To reach out, walk the aisle and find partners in diplomacy in order to strike a deal, pass legislation. And I think, to a large degree, that such sentiments are noble and admirable.  In the end, a compromise or coming together, where both sides can walk away and succeed in front of their “bosses” is, or should be, the goal.

Much of what I do in my job is such positioning, or compromising.  There are certain jobs that have to be done, some that don’t of course, and they must be done, or sunset, by a certain group of people.  Often times, the group that SHOULD be doing the work doesn’t WANNA do the work.  Or, the converse is true as well, the organizations that own the work today don’t wanna give it up.  Either way, two divergent thoughts about how to get the thing done.  Only in rare circumstances do I advocate for a total power play.  Most often I urge an agreement that will allow both managers to succeed in front of their boss.

Politics should be no different.

However, it assumes that both players are moderates.  That they don’t have the dogma associated with the zealot.  Faced with conflicting ideas and paths toward success, they feel sure that the “other guy” has the same goal in mind.

Today, that is not the case.  We are dealing with a different kind of conflict today.  We’re debating the very essence of how our government should be organized.  We are NOT debating about how we are going to run an agreed upon government.

On one side, you have a group of people who feel as free and as open a market is best suited to bring about prosperity to a nation as a whole.  On the other, you find a group f of people who feel that by taking more and more of another’s property is the best way to bring about prosperity as a whole.

This is not a debate about a middle ground, this is a debate about which form we wanna live under.

Ayn Rand said it best:

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property.

I can’t compromise with today’s Democrats when it comes to their larger world view.  It has come down to what system of government we will agree to abide by.

1 Comment

Posted in Diplomacy, Government, Liberty, Politics: National

Tagged , ,

Income Disparity

Posted on September 5, 2011 | 1 comment

Income disparity.

Wikipedia describes it like this:

Income inequality in the United States of America is the extent to which income, most commonly measured by household or individual, is distributed in an uneven manner.

Pretty fair I think.  It hits what I think are the important aspects of the topic:

  1. Income
  2. How measured
  3. Distributed
  4. Uneven

I think that most reasonable people wanna help out the folks who need the help.  Further, I think that most reasonable people wouldn’t personally help those folks, who-while down on their luck, aren’t down due to luck.

Anyway, very often when solutions are discussed, or when examples of success are presented, I am faced with the argument that the Income Disparity, the Income Inequality of America is very very poor.  So poor, perhaps, that we rank near, tied for or dead, last.  A common tool to measure the disparity in incomes is the GINI Coefficient.  Or the GINI Index.

The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion developed by the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini and published in his 1912 paper “Variability and Mutability”

The Gini coefficient is a measure of the inequality of a distribution, a value of 0 expressing total equality and a value of 1 maximal inequality. It has found application in the study of inequalities in disciplines as diverse as sociology, economics, health science, ecology, chemistry, engineering and agriculture.

It is commonly used as a measure of inequality of income or wealth.  Worldwide, Gini coefficients for income range from approximately 0.23 (Sweden) to 0.70 (Namibia) although not every country has been assessed.

Most uses of the GINI Coefficient that I have ever heard of deal with Income Disparity.  Though from reading wiki, it seems that the GINI Coefficient is simply a tool to measure dispersion.  So, it’s nice to learn that the GINI is simply a statistical tool that has been applied to measure income disparity.

As I am generally ignorant of many things the measuring of income between the people of a nation, I think it’s important to learn more.  As I enter into this investigations, I’m struck by two aspects of the inquiry:

  1. Does it matter?
  2. What is being measured?

The second first.  Because the GINI can be used to measure seemingly anything at all;  fish in a body of water, water in a body of land or pine cones in a body of grass.  It’s important to know what the subject of the measurement is.  And I think that most discussions surrounding the GINI are clear on what they are measuring.

For example, we are having a discussion concerning taxation on my post concerning Denmark and the United States.  One of my friends  points out that:

The US pre-tax and transfer GINI index is at .46, while Sweden is at .43, and Denmark and Norway are at .42. That means pre-tax they are slightly more even in income distribution, but not much. German has a bigger pre-tax gap between the rich and the poor than the US at .51.

After tax the US GINI index moves to .38 — a modest improvement. But it is the most income disparity of the entire industrialized world. Taxes and transfers move the wealth distribution from .46 to .38.

After taxes and transfers Denmark is at .23.

Clearly the GINI is being used to measure two different things.  Income pre-tax and then income post-tax.  Which is valid as long as the measurements are clearly labelled.  And again, I think in most cases they are honestly so represented.

Now the first.  Does it matter?

This is trickier.  Does the fact that the richest among us make more than the poorest among us matter?  Perhaps.  It sounds like there is a body of evidence that suggests it does matter AND that when that disparity is high, society suffers.  I don’t know, I haven’t looked at it.  First blush, I think my take is that I don’t care as long as I have a reasonable shot at getting pretty close to the top.  And reasonable can mean many things.  When I buy a lottery ticket I have as reasonable a shot as anyone else.  I certainly would resent the rich having a better shot at winning numbers than me JUST because they were rich.

So, where are we.

I wanna look at Income Disparity.  Perhaps as it’s measured by the GINI.  And I wanna know, at the end, several things.  The first of which is: DOES IT MATTER?

And if it does, which of the following matters the most:

  1. Straight income.  The MONEY paid from employer to employee.
  2. Total compensation.  The total compensation from employer to employee.
  3. This measurement BEFORE taxes.
  4. This measurement AFTER taxes.
  5. Finally, this measurement AFTER social entitlement programs.

Let’s see how this goes.

Thoughts?

1 Comment

Posted in Economics, Economy, Liberty, Politics: National

Tagged ,