tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-308518692024-03-07T21:35:23.556-05:00the Gregarious BlogThis blog is the pinnacle of Western thought in politics, religion, theology, history, science, culture, epistemology, and all other areas of study, not to forget, satire.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-27968749478092147142011-05-16T23:51:00.003-04:002011-05-16T23:54:06.403-04:00Debt by Fiat? Musings on the Constitutionality of the Debt Ceiling<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Today, May 16, 2011, according to Treasury Secretary Geithner, the Federal government hit the debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion. (odd number to set the limit at, right?) That's $14,294,000,000,000.00. Anyways, the Treasury has begun taking extraordinary measures to prevent defaulting on its loans until August 2, after around which those normal extraordinary measures won't be enough. Right now that includes raiding the Federal employee pension fund. (The government is legally required to repay the fund with interest, although I believe that is along the lines of what they said about the social security trust fund.) What would defaulting on loans mean besides possibly a government shutdown like the one averted earlier this year? Many economists say a global financial catastrophe. US debt is looked up as being an investment safe as cash. That would no longer be the case. Congress isn't stupid enough to let that happen of course, right? But one has to wonder should Congress be stupid enough to fail to raise the debt ceiling by around August 2 could the extraordinary measures include an Executive Order either raising the debt ceiling or simply instructing the Treasury to ignore the debt ceiling entirely and continue issuing debt?</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Should that discussion arise, which I imagine it will if come July the debt ceiling still hasn’t been raised, I think pivotal to that discussion will be the 14th Amendment, Section 4.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The <b>validity of the public debt of the United States</b>, <b>authorized by law</b>, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, <b>shall not be questioned</b>. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"></p></blockquote><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The question is, would not raising the debt ceiling on its debt cause the validity of the public debt to be questioned? From a financial market perspective, most definitely. For that matter, the mere talk of the debt ceiling causes questioning of the validity of the public debt of the United States in financial markets. As long as there are accounting gimmicks to avoid default then probably the debt is not questioned. But you would be hard pressed to say the public debt is not questioned if the United States defaults on the public debt. Almost by definition it is being questioned.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">There's another key point though in that section, the validity of the public debt, authorized by law. Who has the power to authorize by law? Well, Article I of the Constitution states:</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"></p></blockquote><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The President does not have legislative powers to make laws. Additionally, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"></p></blockquote><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It doesn't state the President has the power to avoid the questioning of the validity of the public debt. Would an executive order raising the debt ceiling or instructing the Treasury to ignore it be introducing public debt not authorized by law? My guess is probably technically. Strictly speaking, not only would that be public debt not authorized by law, but that would be additionally public debt in opposition to a law made by Congress. Now, should such an Executive Order be made and found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court I'm betting Congress would choose to honor those debts issued in the interim. Of course, would the market believe the debt still had the full faith and credit of the United States government? That's a whole different discussion I won't get into now.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">But wait, if not raising the debt ceiling would cause the validity of the public debt of the United States to be questioned, and if only Congress has the power to authorize debt, which wins? Isn't there a dichotomy between the not questioning of the validity of the public debt and not exceeding the debt ceiling? This raises a bigger question than does the President have the power to raise or ignore the debt ceiling. Does Congress have the power to institute a debt ceiling? In other words, is a debt ceiling even constitutional in the first place?</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Now wait, if a debt ceiling isn't constitutional, what's to stop Congress or the Executive Branch from borrowing without control. Well, first off, clearly a debt ceiling hasn't stopped us from borrowing without control. Need I remind you, $14,294,000,000,000.00. But we haven't always had a debt ceiling. The debt ceiling wasn't around until 1917. There is a constitutional means for controlling spending and borrowing, it's called a budget. If Congress doesn't want more borrowing than Congress shouldn't have passed a budget which requires more budgeting. The Executive Branch cannot legally spend money that Congress hasn't appropriated. And yet, Congress just last month appropriated a budget which we knew then would necessitate the debt ceiling being raised. There's a conflict right there. Is the Executive Branch supposed to follow the appropriations by Congress or follow the debt ceiling by Congress? Is one law passed by Congress trump the other? You don't knowingly put together a budget that relies on increasing debt while also knowing you aren't willing to rely on increasing debt. If you're going to do that, then you should cut spending enough so you won't increase debt, not play chicken with your debt limit. If you want to limit debt, limit your spending. (or increase revenue)</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I don't have the answer to the question of whether the President can by Executive Order, by fiat, raise or ignore the debt ceiling. Nor do I have the answer to whether the debt ceiling is even constitutional to begin with. Only the Supreme Court can definitively answer those questions, and only if and when such an Executive Order is if ever issued, and of course only after relying on years of case law in addition to the Constitution.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial; min-height: 11.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">(In full disclosure: Although I may be an employee of the government I am only writing as a private citizen exercising the freedom of speech and am not in any way, shape, or form speaking on behalf of the United States government.)</span></span></p>Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-20271651238453547702010-11-18T15:11:00.001-05:002010-11-18T15:11:09.583-05:00<p class="mobile-photo"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZwM31nkbcFeU4G9XXymMFVylpWEW_KOHsZYUWpNLbEtaT0ZxwufJJ-7eyEwlQ2RHx_xgsZV0eEa9rdZsqOTCc1MR49-1Y7OMQhRZG-HX73cdvlX4_pOrY1ppNop24c52qtdrjrw/s1600/IMG_3617-769584.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZwM31nkbcFeU4G9XXymMFVylpWEW_KOHsZYUWpNLbEtaT0ZxwufJJ-7eyEwlQ2RHx_xgsZV0eEa9rdZsqOTCc1MR49-1Y7OMQhRZG-HX73cdvlX4_pOrY1ppNop24c52qtdrjrw/s320/IMG_3617-769584.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5540984853973414690" /></a></p><tr height="15" style="border-top: 1px solid #0F7BBC;"> <td> In an age when airlines nickel and dime you, how can you complain about free preventative health care? </td> </tr> Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-32901792828182232092010-11-17T00:32:00.002-05:002010-11-17T00:33:50.110-05:00Incentivizing Lousiville Cardinal Fans to Stay for the WHOLE Game<div class="mbl notesBlogText clearfix"><div><p>I think all of us Louisville Card fans are proud of our team's performance against the NCAA March Madness runner up Butler tonight. But if you were at the game, or my guess watching it on TV, you might not be able to tell in the last minutes. As I looked around the new Yum! Center, the arena appeared half empty. This wasn't some exhibition game, this was the first real game against a very real team. It was also, I call, a disgrace on a part of the fans who left early.</p><p>That's why I propose this or a similar system to incentivize ticket holders to be the loyal fans they are and pack the house at every game and support our team until the final buzzer ends, win or lose. Every ticket price should include a small deposit per game. For each game, when its scanned to enter the arena you would get a portion of the deposit credited back electronically to your account. But the real incentive would come at the end of the game. After the clock runs out, and only after the clock runs out, you could have your ticket scanned as you leave the arena and have a larger portion of the deposit returned to you electronically. This would reward people who stay and support the team rather than try and beat traffic. Although I have no statistics to back this up, I think having a packed house at the end each game would increase our winning record. It would keep the morale of the team up, thus making less likely them losing a lead if they have one and more likely of making a come back if they are behind.</p><p>I noticed another thing as I looked around, or rather up. The lower part of the arena was empty, but the top of the arena was still almost full. Now, unless I'm mistaken, that's because the fans in the upper deck for whatever reason can't afford what it takes to get good seats in the lower section (or simply haven't had season tickets long enough to get the points) but what they do pay is a greater percentage of their income than all the donations and ticket costs themselves are to fans in the lower deck and so are valued more. To help encourage our fellow fans in the lower arena and our loyal fans high up for each game when you scan your ticket after the game is over so many CAF (Cardinal Athletic Fund) points would be rewarded.</p><p>These proposals would both encourage fans to support the team to the end, like they should, and to reward loyal fans with better seats if those with good seats consistently leave early. If you couldn't make a game, you would have extra incentive to ensure you give or sell your tickets to someone you know will go. (In the case of giving them to someone you know, you could remind them to scan their ticket and login and view if they did. If they keep leaving early you would probably give them to another friend who would stay.) I don't know whether you would want to charge a small deposit for higher up seats and as the ticket price increases a larger deposit since a $1 fee for example wouldn't be enough to change behavior. There is precedence for revoking season tickets from people who don't use them. I know Churchill Downs at least used to do this with box seats, as my dad received boxed seats from my grandfather, sold them to his law office, and after a couple of years of them not being used enough lost them.<br /></p><p>And remember, this isn't adding cost to the tickets. If you go to every game and stay until the end, or at least make sure your ticket is put to use when you can't, you would get back all your money. We could even keep in a savings account and you get the interest (doubt it would amount to much) it earned. If you really can't find anyone to take your tickets, you could turn them into the box office before hand and would automatically get your CAF points and your deposit back, and if the tickets are sold your money back. (Probably be best to use a site like FlashTickets to manage electronically and not worry about physical tickets.) I'm pretty sure there are 22000 Card fans that would gladly jump at a chance to go to a random game who can't afford season tickets and all the mandatory donations. But if for some not enough people can be found, by letting the box office your seats won't be used they could upgrade people from higher up to keep the lower section full.</p><p>Of course, there would be the question of what to do with the deposits that aren't claimed. Of course that could always be donated to a scholarship fund. Or perhaps to further incentivize every one who does stay would split the pot of deposits. (would work best if the deposit is the same for everyone, but could probably still be manged if otherwise.) If everyone stayed for the end of a nail-biting game, you'd just get your deposit back. But if people start leaving early, the amount you would get back if you stay would increase providing feedback to the crowd to keep the rest of the crowd there since they will earn more.</p><p>Finally, if just giving hard cash doesn't sound good, we could always link it to promotions and even make money off the sponsorship. Stay until the end of the game and when you leave you get 100 points on your Q-doba card for example. People are crazy about Q-doba. I however think just crediting cash back would be most effective since everyone likes money, not everyone will like any particular restaurant we let do a promotion.</p><p>(Don't get me started on UK fans in the student section during the UK game. I find that disgraceful. I think that as a condition for receiving student tickets so cheaply, part of the contract should be for that game you agree to wear red (or at least U of L gear, although for the UofL-UK game it really should be red.) You would agree that upon arriving at the section during the game, the school could challenge your wear, (aka UK or blue clothing) and give you a CardShirt to put on. If you really insist on cheering for UK (vomiting in my mouth as I type) you could take a seat in the upper deck and some lucky fan would get upgraded to the lower arena.) Something like that would be too late to put in a contract to receive tickets this year, but could be in place in two years. If its in a contract you sign when purchasing tickets I think it should be legal. It would be akin to the student section being extras in a movie and obviously being able to dictate what you wear or fire you. But that's another issue.)</p></div></div>Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-51962291414825357752010-11-09T13:53:00.003-05:002010-11-09T15:23:27.774-05:00New Congressional Draft Leads to Draft DodgingYou know what they say, those who deserve power don't want it and those that want it don't deserve it. This has never been truer than in politics. In 2014 we saw Congress swing back in control of the Republicans, after having swung in 2012 back to the Democrats, before that in 2010 the House going to the Republicans, and in 2008 and 2006 moving Democratic. This back and forth, back in forth has become the only change America could expect from Congress.<br /><br />That's why after the 2014 Midterm Elections, (one might call No Real Decision 2014), many Americans had had enough. The grassroots movement to amend the Constitution, to select Congress members by a draft, similar to that used back in Vietnam, or jury duty, caught traction. As co-founder of the Congressional Duty movement Gerald put it, "Well, when I look around at the people I know, the only ones I would truly like to see in office don't want to touch it. So I thought, what if serving in Congress were like jury duty? A random selection of representatives is the only way to ensure we get qualified individuals into office these days." When asked if he wanted to serve, "Hell no! But that's the point. If my name comes up, I'll go though, of course."<br /><br />Article 5 of the Constitution provides two paths for an amendment. One is for two-thirds of both houses of Congress to vote to propose an amendment. The other is for two-thirds of state legislatures to ask Congress to call a national convention to propose an amendment, never before used until now. Of course, the latter approach was necessary as Congress would never be willing to relinquish power. As Democratic minority leader Nancy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Pelosi</span> said, "We're doing great work. Why would we support some damn %$@ amendment from the same people who are in the Tea Party movement to stop us?" For the record, neither founder of the Congressional Duty movement are in the Tea Party. One was in fact a registered Democrat before becoming an Independent.<br /><br />Co-founder Gerald may say "of course" he'll go, but that hasn't been the case with many who have received Congressional Duty notices. We talked to Vietnam historian Mark Porter. "What we're seeing is not <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">un</span>-akin to draft dodgers during the Vietnam War, although what is surprising is the rate of dodging going on. It's actually worse than that among those called to Vietnam, despite the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">ostensible</span> lack of threat of death in the case today, and of course the Congressional pay and health benefits. (You can thank the 2008 Congress for ensuring that Congressmen enjoy their great benefits despite the changes forced onto the rest of Americans.) We've even seen the unemployed with homes about to foreclose dodge service, saying they'd rather live in a homeless shelter than move to DC."<br /><br />Yes, across America, Americans are waking up to the fact that they may have to serve in Congress. One Congressional Duty supporter anonymously said "I was working hard to get the amendment path. I have more faith in the average Joe than the career politician. But then I realized I could receive that dreaded notice."<br /><br />There are of course various requirements to be eligible to the Congressional Draft. The original age limits set by Constitution remain in effect. This means that at age 25, you must sign up with the Selective Service, whether male or female. What used to be a somewhat significant birthday only because of the promise of lower car insurance and the ability to rent a car has become absolutely dreaded. There are however exemptions for those pursuing higher education. I talked to head of admissions at Harvard University. "We've seen the number of applicants for our masters, doctorate, post-doctorate, and post-post doctorate programs skyrocket." The same holds true at universities across the country. Doctorate student Jessica Smith said "I was going to pursue a promising career in private industry. I had several job offers coming out of college, which is saying something considering the sluggish economy. But I realized if I left academia I would face the possibility of serving in Congress. I know the chance is slim, but I can't take that risk. I'll take the loads of debt for grad school any day." Asked about her plans after her doctorate, "Oh, I'm already looking at grad schools for my post-doctorate, and post-post doctorate after that."<br /><br />Law school must receive special treatment. In order to reduce the likelihood of a would-be career politician ending up in Congress, the amount of persons in Congress with a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Juris</span> Doctorate have been capped at 5%. Law school advisor Karen McCormick said, "At first I had hope that this would mean we would start seeing only applicants to law school who were, you know, actually interested in practicing law and not doing it just to get into politics. I underestimated how much people loath Congress though when the number of applicants actually jumped. We're seeing people who just want a permanent way practically out of the draft. They're willing to take on huge debt with no promise of paying it off just to avoid the possibility." The sense amongst the newest class at Yale was hopeful. But amongst those third year, L3, students about to graduate, positively abysmal. Natalie <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Carneige</span> said, "What am I supposed to do now? I did my undergrad in political science and got a law degree with no intent on practicing law so I could get into politics. The job that is being forced onto other people is out of my grasp. I got into politics because I saw there are two things that more money will be spent on, health care and political campaigns, and I don't like blood. But without elections all the political advisor jobs are drying up." This attitude seen here and especially at lesser law schools has led to an increase in suicides amongst law students. (If your son or daughter are in law and had political aspirations, we strongly advise you get them into therapy immediately.)<br /><br />One of the other controversial requirements of eligibility is that potential draftees must be current on their taxes. As one anonymous farmer put it, "I don't see why we have to go punishing honest, tax paying individuals with the threat of serving in DC." Will he stop paying his taxes? "No, but that's because I hire illegal immigrants to work my farm, so I'm counting on that being good enough to get me out if my number comes up." The requirement was of put in to rid the potential pool of Congressmen from unqualified candidates, like the former Secretary of the Treasury Timothy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Geithner</span> who somehow passed Congressional approval in 2009 despite having not payed self-employment taxes. I talked to tax attorney Richard Green. Would he say the amount of tax evasions have gone up. "Oh, most certainly. Business is booming, never better. I'm working 100 hours a week as tax day approaches. Our clientele used to be the rich who had money they wanted to hide. Now though, we're seeing Americans from every walk of life come in to evade taxes so to be ineligible from the draft. Of course, almost half of America doesn't end up owing the government money. The interesting thing is we even see those people come in. At first we turned them away but eventually caved in to pleas for help. I may be a lawyer, but I'm not so cold-hearted as to sentence them to serving in Congress."<br /><br />Armed forces recruiters have started pushing to make military service an exemption to Congressional duty but so far no luck. They're banking on the horrors of possibly serving in Congress being perceived worse than going to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran. Our soldiers are brave, but no one can blame them for not being brave enough to serve in DC.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-17931121674066910522009-07-24T21:27:00.008-04:002009-07-24T21:35:56.968-04:00Government Health Care Flow Chart (from Congress)This chart is from Congress and illustrates how simple our new government health care will be. I'm not making this up, this is not a joke, although I can see where you would get that.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newmajority.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dems_health_plan_organizational_chart.jpg">http://www.newmajority.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dems_health_plan_organizational_chart.jpg</a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.newmajority.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dems_health_plan_organizational_chart.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 378px; height: 288px;" src="http://www.newmajority.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dems_health_plan_organizational_chart.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-49283556635334560062009-07-23T18:07:00.003-04:002009-07-24T11:45:05.854-04:00I beg to differ Mr. PresidentPresident Obama,<br /><br />You were asked last night about a black Harvard Professor who was arrested for disorderly conduct after breaking into his own home. The police responded to a call of two men breaking in to the home, asked to see his ID, and he defiantly refused and accused the officers of racism. Eventually he shows proof of ownership, but continues to be agitated. You said that "I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry,"<br /><br />Apparently you and I are different. I would not be upset to see the police showing to prevent what looked like a burglary of my property. I would be grateful and happily show them my ID. I would be left thinking I live in a safe neighborhood with a good neighborhood watch. Hopefully I would know my neighbors so they would have recognized me in the first place, but that's beside the point.<br /><br />And then you had the boldness to say "No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." I still can't believe called the police officers stupid for doing their job and responding to a robbery. Sure, now you are claiming that you were calling the incident stupid. But clearly you said the police acted stupidly, which implies you called the police officers stupid. The professor was not arrested at that point for breaking into his home, he was arrested for disorderly conduct.<br /><br />You then said "And No. 3 — what I think we know separate and apart from this incident — is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionally and that’s just a fact." Whether or not you not you said it was apart from this incident, your words in fact imply you are calling the officers racists. I think its obvious this wasn't a case of racism. Perhaps the man shouldn't have been arrested, but if you're being yelled at and called a racist for doing your job you aren't going to be sympathetic. There was a black officer present. Additionally, the arresting officer has taught a diversity class to other officers for the past five years. I don't think a racist would do that. The police officer shouldn't be apologizing, you and the professor you should be apologizing for calling him racist.<br /><br />It wouldn't surprise me if your friend Professor Gates wanted to be arrested. I'm not saying he came thinking he would get arrested. But now that he was arrested he is on cable news. Next thing you know he will be announcing his book deal.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />GregGregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-30805896109235708772009-07-23T18:02:00.004-04:002009-07-24T11:43:57.633-04:00Health Care - Worth Taking the Time to FixYesterday, thankfully, it was announced that the health care bill will not be voted on before the August recess despite President Obama's time table to do so. (You can't blame the Republicans anymore, the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate so all the delays are from their disagreements) This is only a good thing, in my opinion, no matter what side you stand on.<br /><br />If health care is as important an issue as it is claimed, then we the American people deserve for any bill promising reform to have had the time devoted to it to try and ensure it is well thought out. There are many issues yet to have been addressed, including how much exactly this will cost, how we will pay for it, who and how covered procedures and medicines will be determined, what sacrifices we will have to make, (and there will be, despite vague answers) and more. This are not easy and light issues. As of yet, I have not heard satisfactory answers to these questions. His news conference Wednesday certainly failed to offer them. To try and push such a bill through without these questions having been addressed and explained to the American people, who should have a chance to respond, was ludicrous on the part of the President.<br /><br />The problems of our nations health care have been around and developing for years. How then can you argue that a bill must be passed so quickly, that a couple more months cannot be given to try and ensure the bill is good? Many point to President Bush as having used the politics of fear to push through legislation in the wake of 9/11. I point to President Obama as using the politics of fear to push through health care and other legislation that dramatically changes the nature and role of our government. Obama is afraid if he doesn't get his bill passed soon, Americans will begin to realize that it isn't the silver bullet he promised. The economic crisis that burst forth open last October was not related to health care. (it was caused by over-borrowing, and is being fixed by over-borrowing) And yet, the President seems to connect the two and use the financial crisis as a pretext for rushing through health care reform. If President Bush used fear tactics, President Obama has used them from the beginning of his presidency.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-87147810178162832912009-03-03T22:52:00.004-05:002009-03-03T23:32:16.259-05:00So When Did AIG Become FDIC Insured Anyways?Our government sank another $30 billion into AIG this week, for a grand total of some $170 billion since the beginning of this crisis. We've been told AIG is "too big to fail." It's becoming we've lost too much money for it to fail. Any hope that we would make money off this "investment" (remember the good ole days of October 2008) has in my opinion has died.<br /><br />Let's recall what AIG did to get in such trouble. It wasn't health insurance or providing your grandmother with an annuity, nor their aircraft leasing business. It was their Credit Default Swaps (CDS), basically insurance on an investment, such as a corporate bond or mortgage-backed security. Say you bought some debt of GM (because you wouldn't want to buy one of their cars), thus lendig them money to use (they really need it), but you were afraid they would default. You could get a Credit Default Swap, a contract where you the buyer would pay a small fee to cover that bond to the seller (like AIG), and if the company defaulted paying back the bond you receive a payment. Basically insurance on the bond, but the key being its not regulated. There were no rules over how much money a seller of CDS had to have on hand to cover losses, as there are in regulated insurance. Indeed, there were no rules that you even had to actually own a bond of the company you were buying, if you thought a company would fail you could bet against it. So, there were more CDS than the underlying assets they were insuring.<br /><br />As I mentioned, CDS's were not regulated. Your normal commercial bank where you have a checking and savings account, is regulated (I would say well-regulated but if you've watched the news...) and FDIC-insured. (Federal Deposit Insurance Company) So, should the bank fail, your money in your accounts would be safe, up to $100,000 at a bank before the crisis, now $200,000 or so. But these credit default swaps that AIG and other banks were making were not regulated like insurance companies, or banks, and not FDIC insured. Like buying stock, there's a risk the CDS will fail. But somehow, we (or at least the government) has got this mentality that we can't let AIG fail because all these credit default swaps would fail. So what? That would be horrible if people lost money on their bad investments. Investors should have been aware they were buying unregulated insurance and could lose. The problem in my opinion is not that AIG is too big too fail but that their product (CDS) has now become too important to fail and is being treated like an FDIC insured bank account where the government will back it, despite AIG and the investors never having paid anything to cover them when they were profiting. If only they had bought credit default swaps on their credit default swaps. Will we the taxpayers keep sinking money into AIG to cover ever investor's loss covered by a credit default swap? Probably.<br /><br />This raises another question, which could be a post in itself. These large banks (I won't name them) that keep getting bailout money, why doesn't the normal FDIC process apply here? The accounts are FDIC-insured, so although they can fail the account holders would be protected. If a bank is good it shouldn't need money, and if its bad it would reach a point where its about to not be able to cover its accounts, in which case the Feds would step in, wipe out the shareholders, prop the bank up, and reorganize it and eventually re-privatize it. Fair and simple. The way the media portrays it if the banks failed the account holders would lose, which is not true. And yet, there has not been much talk about the FDIC since October.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-49032528634148871212009-02-26T17:38:00.006-05:002009-02-26T18:34:45.483-05:00Obama's Charity Tax: The War On CharityObama announced today his $4 trillion budget. To help pay for this, one of the tax increases will be on charitable donations of the rich. (as well as mortgage-interest deductions since houses are selling too fast as it is and taxes on energy) Obama is planning on reducing the tax deduction of those in the top tax bracket, 35%, from the 35% they are paying for each dollar donated to 27%. That's effectively an 8% tax on charitable donations.<br /><br />Clearly, this charity tax is going to drive down donations to charities, but is that a bad thing? Let us start this war on charity, because charities have too much money as it is. It's about time they suffered like the rest of America. They overpay their employees who enjoy plush jobs that they don't have to work at unlike our dedicated, government servants who work for too little in jobs that could be eliminated at any moment. They have such a demand for their services these days that they shouldn't have a problem making ends meet; after all, any business would die (some are) to get that much demand for their products now.<br /><br />How is it fair that a rich person who donates say $1000 gets back the $350 in taxes they paid on that money, when those in the next lowest tax bracket pays $270 in taxes on that same $1000 and only gets back a measly, $270 and not $350? That rich person who worked to get that $1000 could have taken time off from work and donated their time and not made that $1000 that they donated thus getting back $350 they owed on it, but since they did work and donate they should only get back $270 after paying $350 in taxes on money they didn't keep. But what about the poor who make donations? They get back even less than $270 on $1000 they donate, how is that fair? If you don't pay taxes, you won't get any money back on your taxes for making a donation. (the really poor and Treasury Secretary Geithner) Clearly, the only fair thing to do is to get rid of charitable deductions.<br /><br />And shame on that rich person, who having likely managed their money well by keeping a budget, should consider donating less because the taxes on that money they would donate would consume more of their budget. Not only should they donate the same irregardless of taxes, they should donate more so to offset the increased tax on giving, so that the government gets not a penny more than before, thus showing they don't just give to reduce their tax burden, but to spite the government.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-69101743681023176632008-07-15T11:15:00.002-04:002008-07-15T12:48:33.925-04:00America For SaleYesterday, it was announced that Anheuser-Busch, maker of Budweiser beer, was being sold to the Belgian brewer InBev for $52 billion. This could mean major trouble for Americans who love their cheap, flavorless beer. Just think, a Budlight is now going to be considered an import, with import prices. And it will be more patriotic to drink microbrews than Budweiser. Superbowl ads in Belgish? (We're being bought by a country that isn't even large enough to have its own language.) What is the world coming to? We must retaliate against the Belgians by calling Belgium Waffles (can you guess it?) Freedom Waffles. Then again, maybe that's our problem, everything being free. After all, $52 billion isn't what it once was. It's just a measling 33 billion euros, practically free. America is on sale for bargain basement prices.<br /><br />The selling of the America's "King of Beers" is symbolic of foreign capital coming in and buying American companies. Last week the Chrysler building in New York was sold to Abu Dhabi. Of course earlier this year Citigroup was bailed out by Middle Eastern investors. This raises the question should this trend be a concern to Americans?<br /><br />First off, can we complain about foreign capital coming into America when Americans have long been and are investing in foreign countries? Is there anyway for us in the age our modern financial system to stop this? To do that would require we ban foreigners from buying stock in American companies, which even if it could be done would end up causing other countries to do the same to Americans. We would have to become xenophobes, recluses hiding out across the oceans.<br /><br />Its important to keep in mind that these foreign countries are out to make money. They aren't going to buy up America, so that one day we'll wake up to see our city skylines destroyed not by bombs, but demolished by foreign owners. They aren't going to by companies and then dissolve them. They want to make money, just like America wants to make money, and that is to our advantage. We have a large national debt, too large in my opinion, held largely by foreign countries like China. Countries that are holding are debt aren't going to do anything that would cause us to default on our loans. If they did, they wouldn't get their money back that they loaned us. The whole world economy would come tumbling down after America.<br /><br />Perhaps to get our economy out of the gutter we could, as a nation, pull an Enron. We'll just fudge the numbers a bit. All we have to do is print more money than we say we printed. Nations have tried to print their way out of poverty, which has only resulted in rampant inflation. But that's because people knew they were printing the money. If the rest of the world doesn't know we're printing more money that we then use to pay down our debt, buy back stakes in American companies, and maybe buy stakes in foreign companies, (we'll throw in some foreign aid to developing countries) no harm done. It would also be very unifying for the country. Committing fraud is very unifying, your team has to be on the same page, committed to secrecy. If one person gets a conscience, it's all over, and everyone hangs together. "United we stand, divided we fall." This could really bring red and blue America together. Just think of it as a loan off our future prosperity that will be achieved. After all, the American dollar is weak because its seen as weak, but if America is able to do all this the dollar will appear strong and thus be strong, allowing us to do all that we would have just did. It's like the give a penny take, take a penny tray at cash registers. We're just taking billions of weak pennies now because we're a little short, and giving them back as strong pennies. To put it another way, its a sub-prime loan helping poor America who can't afford its own home to get one. I'm going to put it out there to all you pessimists who think the government isn't doing enough that maybe they are already doing this plan and the economy is going to improve, they just couldn't tell you because you would spill the beans on your blog to the whole world. Keep that in mind when you go to vote for president. If this plan is in place, McCain knows about it, Obama doesn't. You don't want to risk ruining that, do you? If Obama can be a secret Muslim, then McCain can have a secret plan for fixing the economy.<br /><br />So you have a conscience and don't want to go through with the secret plan. There's an upside to the declining dollar. Our $9.5 billion national debt becomes a mere 6 billion euro national debt. Now is the time to pay off our national debt. Obviously, we can't use our tax money to pay this off since that tax is collected in dollars, which would defeat the point. Solution eBay. If we start selling items in Europe on eBay we will have a source of Euros. But we must act now, before the dollar becomes strong again and is coronated the King of Currencies once again, ushering in a reign of prosperity, another golden age for America.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-1316811112970241262008-04-18T13:53:00.003-04:002008-04-18T14:09:47.774-04:00DISASTER STRIKES!If you live here in Louisville or the Midwest, you may have been woken up this morning by an earthquake. Now that your mind is on natural disasters, let's take a look at disaster preparedness. (If you're a long time reader of this blog, the following has been said before in response to Hurricane Katrina, but if its quite relevant now that we're thinking about the "big one." You might say I don't just blog on the news, I blog before the news even occurs.)<br /><br />We were lucky with the hurricane, we knew it was coming a week in advance. Of course, the government still had a horrible response. I predict the worse natural disaster that could hit the US is an earthquake. (Besides a large asteroid striking in or near the US.) An earthquake would be bad because there's no warning, it just happens. There's no time to evacuate, to go to the store and stock up on supplies, no time for anything. There's no time for the feds to call up the national guard, or preposition supplies. Now you're probably thinking of the San Andreas fault in California. And that's certainly a possibility, but we also must consider the New Madrid fault in Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and my own state of Kentucky. It should be pointed out that the largest earthquakes on record in the United States were from the New Madrid fault, and not the San Andreas fault. Three occurred in 1811 and 1812. The only reason not many people died is because it was 1811 & 1812 and so the area wasn't heavily populated. The same quakes today would cause immense damage. And indeed, there is much talk about us being due the big one. <br />I think the first lesson learned is you cannot expect help from the Federal government in the first few days to reach you in the disaster zone. Now with Katrina, the government new it was coming and probably should have responded better faster. But with say an earthquake, no warning will be available and so you definitely can't expect a fast response. Who knows what condition the roads will be in to allow aid to reach people. No, communities and individuals will be on there own for at least several days, if not longer.<br /><br />So, perhaps each person in a vulnerable area or even the whole US should have a survival kit assembled with several days worth of nonperishable food (probably MRES - Meals Ready to Eat), water, a first aid kit, a radio for information, water filter, tarps, and other supplies. I doubt too many people are going to do this, (I myself have not and probably won't anytime soon) so the government would need to encourage this somehow, maybe by making it tax deductible. Then you have the problem that if all these buildings have collapsed, how will people reach the kits when they're buried under debris. People could build sheds to store all their emergency supplies. (Build a earthquake resistant house, call it an emergency shelter, and you'll be exempt from property taxes.)<br /><br />Chances are that's not going to happen, so each community should store emergency supplies, not in one central location, but at various locations within walking distance of all residents. Each neighborhood could be responsible for their own supplies. And as the shelf life approaches, if MREs do indeed have shelf lives, the food could be given out to the homeless so it doesn't ruin and go to waste and be replaced with new food.<br /><br />Each community should have disaster centers from which to manage disasters. For starters, the buildings should be especially built to survive the disasters, whether hurricane, earthquake, etc. They should have back up generators and maybe solar panels, satellite phones and satellite internet for communication in case the land lines go down, two way radios, food, water, gasoline, vehicles, etc. Communications was a problem after Katrina. <br />What about after the initial disaster and when aid must be distributed? After Katrina, the government was criticized both for being too slow in getting out money while being criticized for people getting away with fraud. First of all, if you want speed fraud will happen, that's the price you pay. What we need is a database of everyone including biometric information (fingerprints and retina scans), where they live, and other information. This would be a national database and backed up in several locations in case a disaster strikes any one server's location. Then, when a disaster hits an area, the government will be able to quickly verify if someone really does live in the affected area, and if they are who they say they are. and get the money to people who are suppose to have it quickly. It would also be able to make sure people don't double dip into the funds. The government might not be able to stop people from buying $100 bottles of wine, etc., but they could control who gets the money in the first place. <br />After Katrina, many people had trouble getting new ID since they lost their birth certificates along with it. With a database, new IDs could be quickly issued. This is important since an ID is needed to access one's bank account, etc. Who knows, maybe the government could provide each American with an allotted amount of electronic storage in this database to backup important information in case all their belongings are destroyed.<br /><br />A final step step we should take is disaster mitigation to reduce the impact of disasters in the first place. This could include not building in areas prone to flooding (like under sea level), building earthquake resistant homes, clearing brush away near buildings in wooded areas, and not building on the sea coast or building hurricane proof houses. Obviously disaster mitigation costs some money, but its cheaper to mitigate a disaster than to recover from a disaster. They can actually make buildings that are designed to resist earthquakes better, and homes that survive hurricanes. Building codes should require new buildings to follow guidelines that would mitigate disaster. We also don't want to repeat the mistake of requiring casinos to be floating, resulting in casinos ending up miles inland. If you are going to have casinos, they might as well be on land, because its not going to affect how many people gamble anyways.<br /><br />More disasters are likely to happen. Sooner or later an earthquake is going to strike without warning, and we need to prepare now for that worst case scenario in addition to everything else. We cannot expect the federal government to be there to help for several days, and each community and each individual needs to be prepared to survive on there own in the mean time. We should have centers to manage disasters in each community that will survive the disaster. We need a national database so that we can get new IDs to be people, and get aid to the people that need it without wasteful fraud. And finally, but still importantly, we should take steps to mitigate disasters before they happen.<br /><br />(P.S. To my loyal readers out there, I apologize for the sparse postings lately, but I have been swamped at school as the semester ends. We here at the Gregarious Blog believe in excellence, and if we can't deliver it to you then we don't deliver anything, because your time is as valuable as ours.)Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-34209036474816917732008-03-30T21:32:00.009-04:002008-05-02T14:36:34.972-04:00Wall Street versus Main Street? Why not stop at the intersection of Wall Street and Main Street?In this post I will write mainly in response to a speech Obama gave on the economy. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27text-obama.html?pagewanted=all">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27text-obama.html?pagewanted=all</a><br /><br />Barack Obama talks about Wall Street versus Main Street. It seems often that Wall Street and Main Street are viewed as diametrically opposed. That Wall Street prospers on the back of Americans. But does it have to be this way? I think not. Americans, no matter what they make, as long as they make something, should be investing money in the markets. Then they too can prosper when Wall Street prospers. But this requires sacrifice on the part of individuals. They have to choose to save money instead of spend it on items beyond their means. Indeed, this requires that they spend below their means, below their incomes, rather than spend more than their income. If you are in credit card debt money you earn in the market will be wiped out by your credit card interest. Of course there can be good debt, like your mortgage, or your student loans, although as has been brought to light lately that depends on your circumstances. Main Street should prosper on the backs of Wall Street.<br /><br />"To renew our economy and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again and again, we need to address not only the immediate crisis in the housing market, we also need to create a 21st-century regulatory framework and we need to pursue a bold opportunity agenda for the American people." Have you not studied history Obama? Have you no idea that the economy goes up and down, but in the long-term up? In the long-run, if you're diversified, you should make money. That doesn't mean each day you check your portfolio you'll have more, that doesn't even mean any given year you'll have more than you did last year. You could lose money in the short-run, you will lose money in the short-run from time to time. But if you're investing in the long-run, and diversifying your investments, you will historically make money. You say that we shouldn't put short-term gain ahead of long-term consequences, which I totally agree with, but your thinking betrays you and puts short-term gain first. If you strive to get rid of the cycle of bubble and burst, then you are encouraging short-term gain. In the long-term, the economy will improve, the markets go back up. If you're investing for the long-term you don't have that much too fear, except for politicians who will try to "fix" the economy. But if I can be guaranteed that I won't get caught in a bursting bubble, why wouldn't I invest for short-term gain, why wouldn't I put all my money in the latest investment fad? To say that the government needs to work to get rid of the bubbles and ensure stable growth is naive and just contributes to the get quick-rich mentality that got us in this financial quagmire in the first place.<br /><br />I would like to know how Obama proposes to stop bubbles. The stock market by nature will create bubbles. Some area starts going up, whether it be technology stocks or mortgage-backed securities, and other people see this and say to themselves, "I should put my money in there since its doing so well." And they do, which drives up prices even more, causing even more people to do that. But eventually people stop putting money in, and prices start dropping. And then everyone thinks to themselves, "I must get my money out so I'm not stuck holding the deed to this house of cards." And so prices are driven down dramatically. Without dramatically restructuring our economy, there's no real way to stop this. The government can't come in and say the price of a stock or security or a home has gone up too much and so no one else is allowed to buy. And yet that's whats implicit behind Obama's statements. To be fair, I don't think Obama is that radical to attempt that, just too dumb to realize that what he says can't work.<br /><br />One thing the housing bubble has shown is too many Americans aren't diversified financially. Most people's net worth is found in their homes, very little if any outside of them. Although home is housing, it is also an investment and like any investment one shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket. As I said earlier, Americans need to be invested in the market so that they can partake in the riches of Wall Street. Then if your home value drops, you'll be cushioned by investments in some other area. Why not have Main Street and Wall Street intersect?<br /><br />What should the government do to prevent something like the subprime mortgage problem happening again in the long-term? I would argue the single greatest thing would be to educate students while they are in school about finances. This is more important than any regulation we can create. Kids shouldn't graduate without having been taught about making a useful budget, the dangers of credit cards, home loans, IRAs, 401(k)s, mutual funds, stocks, planning for retirement, planning for a house, the benefits and costs of home ownership, etc. The subprime lenders certainly share a large part of the blame for this whole mess. But if people had been educated before they graduated they would have known to avoid subprime loans. (and if they got one anyways that's their fault.) No matter how much regulation, there is bound to be failures of large companies from time to time. There is bound to be more Enrons. There is bound to be more bubbles. But if the average American, especially the workers of those companies, knew to invest for the long-term and to stay diversified, they would not feel a huge impact beyond at having to find another job. They would have known home prices wouldn't keep going up forever. They would have known not to get a mortgage they can't afford.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-65429948375499057182008-02-17T22:25:00.003-05:002008-02-17T22:46:13.348-05:00Presidents' Day: A Day Long ForgottenWhat ever happen to Presidents' Day? We use to celebrate Washington and Lincoln's birthday on different days. And rightly so, as they are both worthy of our rembrance for their great courage to found and hold together these United States of America. We have since rolled the day of celebrating them along with the other 40 Presidents of the United States into one day. Now that day we no longer get off, we no longer celebrate. It has become an excuse for used car dealer sales. Disgraceful. The men who stood up to tyranny and founded a nation, who united a nation, who held it together, who stood up to those who wished to dominate the world, who put themselves under the microscope that is the Presidency, and who willingly handed over their power even to their political opposition where in other states a coup d'etat would have had to take place deserve more. Not only do they deserve that people honor them by setting aside a day of work, they each deserve their own day. If anything, we should get every President's birthday off. These men not only gave of their lives, three of them gave their lives. And to think we can't even afford one day to truly honor them.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-68994632748754446832008-02-08T19:19:00.000-05:002008-02-10T20:43:08.136-05:00Improving Education Requires Refining The Teacher WorkforceWhat is it that we can do to improve our public schools? I would submit that every great organization is made great in part by its people. It doesn't matter whether its a corporation, a non-profit, the government, or I would say even a school. You can have new textbooks, laptops for every student, many standardized tests or no standardized tests, and on and on, but without good teachers you won't get the results you want.<br /><br />I believe that if we truly want to improve public education we have to make it easier to fire underperforming teachers. In the business world if you consistently fail to perform you're fired. But this is not the case in our schools. You pratically have to be caught having an affair with a student or abusing a child to be fired. Results don't matter. We hold our teachers to a standard so low its absolutely disgraceful. I think the majority of our teachers are more capable than that. And I think our students deserve better. They deserve better than the standard being not breaking the law. That doesn't cut it in the business world, and it shouldn't cut it in schools. Public schools, after all, are suppose to benefit the students, not provide jobs you can never get fired from for grown adults. Unless we are willing to fire underperforming teachers we won't have significant improvements in education. If we don't, then there will be individual students are stuck with these bad teachers, who will suffer because of it. It is important to remember our educational policy affects individuals kids, its not just theoretical. I'm not out to hurt teachers but to help students, who should be the focus of education.<br /><br />I should point out that I'm not for firing teachers out of the blue. They deserve to know their standing, whether they are doing an exceptionally good job, and average job, or are underperforming. They deserve a second chance to improve, to put forth the effort if they've grown apathetic under the current culture of mediocracy. They deserve honest feedback. They deserve to respond to criticism, to set the facts straight if they fail their evaluations are incorrect. To fire them without such a chance would be cruel and ineffective. I imagine many teachers would do better knowing that they could get fired for underperforming and rewarded for good work. After all, honestly, how hard would you try at your job if you were set for life? The underperformers should be offered help to improve if they choose. For that matter all teachers should be given help to improve, No one reaches a point where there is nothing new to learn, no way to improve. New teachers should be mentored by more experienced teachers. Continuous improvement for everyone.<br /><br />Politicians are always saying that teachers are underpaid, and should be paid more. But bad teachers are grossly overpaid. Good teachers are grossly underpaid. We need to get rid of bad teachers and pay good teachers more, a lot more. People will object saying that student test scores don't give an accurate picture of a teacher's performance. I would agree 100%. We can't rely entirely on a teacher's students' test scores, that is only a small component. We have to trust principals to evaluate their teachers. People again will say that's a hard thing to do. Yes it is. In the business world managers, executives, CEOs are always having to evaluate their employees and its almost never easy, except in cases of gross misconduct. Principal's can use a variety of ways to evaluate their teachers.Student test scores is a small component. Input from fellow teachers and students is another. Interviews with the teachers, having them write down and talk about their accomplishments from the past year and their development needs for the next year, is a third way. Again, this is not easy, but its as necessary as in business. If a principal finds it easy to fire then they should fired themselves, as they should if they can't make tough decisions. It goes without saying principals also have to be held to tough standards, not just the teachers.<br /><br />I suggest that we hire mathematicians to develop algorithms to use student test scores to evaluate teachers. What do I mean here? I mean algorithms that would show how students improve or fall behind as they go from teacher to teacher, year to year. Right now if a student had a bad teacher they'd probably score lower not just that year, but the next year. But if the next year they had a good teacher, their score would likely improve, although it might still be below average. So through complicated statistical analysis like that, we could use test scores to provide a better view of how teachers are actually performing. Again, its not the whole picture, but it would be an aid in teacher evaluation. I could post a whole blog on student testing, so I'll save that for another time.<br /><br />Rewarding good teachers is not just the right thing to do, its the best thing to do. It will get teachers to try harder, knowing that they will be rewarded. It will help attract more of the best and brightest of our society into the teaching profession. Its no secret that teachers don't make a lot of money. No one will ever go into teaching just for the money. But if you're a bright student with many options deciding on a career and actually interested in teaching, but realize you have to raise your family on a teacher's salary, you're going to be less likely to choose to teach. On the other hand, there are currently people in teaching because its a paycheck, you get a lot of vacation, and you don't really have to worry exereting yourself too much. Colleges of education generally attract many students who aren't the best students. If we reward good teachers we will both motivate teachers and attract generally more qualified people into the teaching career.<br /><br />We also need to offer combat pay. Combat pay is where teachers are paid more to teach in challenging schools, i.e. schools in dangerous and poor areas. The goal is of course to attract good teachers there to turn the schools around. Combat pay has to be high enough that it makes up for the tough assignment and actually attracts good teachers who would otherwise take easier assignments that many better schools gladly offer them even though they're the ones who can do the most good at failing schools. Combat pay shouldn't just be student loan forgiveness but cold, hard cash. Otherwise what incentive will those who didn't take out student loans because their parents saved or more imporatantly because they were exceptionally good students and received scholarships do? And what happens after they're their long enough to have their loans forgiven, then there is no incentive to stay even if they are experienced by this time with working with underperforming students from tough neighborhoods? No, we have to pay them more money. The amount would have to be determined by a study to find out how much money it would take to make someone as likely to take a hard assignment.<br /><br />We must encourage people from challenging technical fields to teach math and science by paying them more to teach, a proficiency of which is necessary for America's long-term succes in a globalized world. People who are skilled in the areas of math and science have a lot of higher paying job options before them than teaching. Wouldn't it be good to have math and science teachers who really know math and science, who are excited about the subjects, rather than have math and science teachers who never majored or worked in those areas. It would be great to have people with real world work experience, who can explain how can explain why the subjects matter, how the topics they're teaching are relevant and important to learn. To do that requires more competitive pay. It also requires allowing professionals who want to try teaching to get in the classrooms before they have to go back to the class themselves. If you have to get a masters in education before you can find out whether teaching is for you or not then you're going to be significantly less likely to try teaching.<br /><br />Going along with encouraging more people to enter education, preferably enough so there is competition for teaching jobs, because competition breeds excellence, is a change to the current pension system. Most school districts or states probably have an old-school (pun intended) pension system in place, where you have to work so many years in the district or state before you are vested, and even then don't get full benefits unless you retire from working in that district or state. I suppose the goal is to encourage teachers to stay working there but in the end I would say it hurts more than it helps. First off, we shouldn't be encouraging bad teachers to stay. I'm sure there are teachers who realize teaching isn't a good profession for them but have to stay because they need the retirement benefits. But more importantly, I imagine it hurts encouraging people to enter teaching. Today, chances are you won't work for the same company your whole life, you'll likely change jobs many times. A company who now has a traditional pension plan instead of 401(k) would have a hard time attracting new employees who want job mobility. Chances are, most teachers are married to someone who brings in more money and whose job dictates where they live. People who otherwise would try teaching are less likely to since they offer traditional pensions which would hurt their retirement if they realize they aren't fit to be teachers and got out, or because they want to move. Not everyone who tries teaching is going to be good, so by offering 401(k)s instead of pensions the pool of applicants will increase, allowing schools to find good teachers and weed out the bad. So we need to phase out pension plans, of course keeping promises to current teachers but giving new teachers and current teachers who choose 401(k)s instead. Not only would this be to the benefit of education, but its to the benefit of local governments since 401(k)s don't tie their hands later on down the road with huge pension obligations when their revenues might be down because of a hurting economy, like today.<br /><br />The teacher unions won't be wild about this plan, they would be pretty adamantly opposed to it. Which is unfortunate, because for the vast deal of teachers it will help them. So how do we pass it, since a plan that can't be passed is useless? Hook higher teacher pay, both rewards for great teachers and higher pay for teachers in general, to the ability to fire bad teachers. If a teacher union won't agree to eliminating underperforming teachers then the only pay increases their teachers get is an adjustment for inflation. This would put pressure on the teachers to encourage their union to agree. If we don't get rid off bad teachers and raise teacher pay then we're paying bad teachers more. For the first school districts or states to adopt such a plan, they would get the added benefit of attracting good teachers from other places with the rewarding pay. I truly believe that improving our public schools requires refining the teaching workforce more than different teaching methods or more money for schools besides what's necessary for competitive teacher pay.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-10500985006158123692008-02-06T10:58:00.000-05:002008-02-10T01:38:15.196-05:00An Apology for ConservatismConservatism is not, at its heart, a mere collection of policies, a platform, nor a political party, but rather at it's heart it is how one thinks, a particular mindset, a way of viewing the world, the whole world and all its happenings, both days of celebration and days that live in infamy, 11/9 and 9/11. There is no Conservative Manifesto. God willing, there will never be a Conservative Manifesto. Two conservatives may differ on the way to approach any number of issues and yet both still be true conservatives. And in spite of, or perhaps because of all the differing approaches conservatives may hold, conservatism presents a far more unified view of the world than other political philosophies.<br /><br />Conservatism recognizes that there is indeed a definitive right and wrong. There is great evil in the world, although there is also great good. It is unfortunately not always easy, not usually easy, to discern but that foundation remains nonetheless. It is a foundation for government, the basis for laws. Our founding fathers recognized this. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." And it remains, I think, a necessary component for the functioning of a successful society. Now to be clear, I am not saying we need to institutionalize any particular religion, the founding fathers also saw the dangers of that mistake repeated many times throughout history. But right and wrong is a necessary basis for government.<br /><br />Conservatives see the hearts of men for what they are, corrupt. This is why we need government, to restrain our passions, our lust, our greed, and our pride. Yes, conservatives see that government is a necessary evil, as are taxes. Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Yes, conservatives believe we need government and taxes, they don't want a world of anarchy. Government protects us within a state from fellow citizens and from threats from other states.<br /><br />It is the same reason that we need government that conservatives see the need to limit and restrain government, because man's heart is corrupt. People ultimately must run any government. And when you put corrupt people in power their corruption can overtake them. The old adage is true, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is why we have a system of checks and balances and separation of powers. No one person or group of people get too much power. And that is why in part conservatives see the need to limit the size and role of government. Many people have come up with and implemented grand plans for utopias, to the ruin of their societies. That men are corrupt, including themselves, is a fact that all these agents of change have sadly failed to recognize. Try to create a heaven on earth and you will end up with a terrestrial hell for this very reason.<br /><br />Conservatives believe in people, not the government, being responsible for their lives. We have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not an entitlement to happiness. When the government starts doing more and more things for people they become more and more dependent upon the government. You end up with a welfare state, in effect a mommy state that picks up their socks after them. Conservatives on the other hand are for citizens being equipped for running their own lives. They are the proud father that watches as their son experiences triumph and learn's from their mistakes. Conservatives are not for leaving people out in the cold either. Conservatives take the approach of "feed a man to fish, feed them for a day, teach a man to fish, feed them for a lifetime." Hence why conservatives favor job training as opposed to welfare. Help people get the skills they need to compete in the world and they can have more income and more importantly a far more satisfying and rewarding life than they can livng off of government handouts. When a job is outsourced people should be provided the opportunites to learn new skills and go into a new, better line of work rather than live off a unemployment check searching through the classifieds for similar jobs that also are being outsourced. Work is not to be viewed as drudgery. Work should be interesting, rewarding, and challenging. It feels good to bring home a paycheck that you earned, to be the one providing for your family, and even to be a supporter of rather than a drag on your society by paying taxes. Perhaps conservatives have done a bad job both portraying this as their goal and more importantly pursuing it as a goal. Hence the push to create personal savings accounts in social security. Its a person's money first, they should be the one to save and invest it for retirement. In my own opinion the government never should have started social security to begin with; its a massive pyramid scheme about to break when you get down to it. Hence personal responsiblity in health care, individuals are better suited to manage their health than any government program, not to say changes don't need to be made.<br /><br />When Conservatives trust people to be responsible, they are also trusting the free market to work by invisible hand to the benefit of society. Competitive markets are best at determining prices, not the government. Competition keeps prices low for consumers. Businesses need to make profit to survive drives them to be efficient. The government doesn't work that way. When the government does things inefficiently, they just tax more or borrow more to pay for it. When the government manages things it ends up with an inefficient, cumbersome bureaucracy that would never cut it in the business world. When the government sets price control that are relevant then we either end up with shortages or surpluses, just think gas price limits and agriculture subsidies, neither has ended up well. Conservatives recognize a need for the government to make sure markets don't turn into monopolies and to make sure companies play fair, but in general see that it is better for the government to stay out of the way. Indeed, conservatives believe the economy is helped best by the government when it gets out fo the way by keeping taxes low and minimizing regulation. Conservatives also see that free trade benefits us and other countries in the long run. Yes, some people's jobs go overseas, but that is why there is a need for job retraining to help them get better jobs. If the government has a role in the economy its in helping people transition, not in helping them hold onto the old economy. Conservatives see that some things don't work well in the free market, like defense, but in most cases the free market is better at allocating resources.<br /><br />Conservatives are for doing just that, conserving. There is a place for tradition and convention in our modern world. There is also a place for change, but that change must be slow and prudent. Conservatives don't fall for change for change sake, they ask the important question of "to what are we changing?" Hastily, unprudent change seldom turns out for the good. The Soviet Union was a great change, but was it a change for the better? Certainly not. No, conservatives have never drunk the Kool-Aid. Conservatives "prefer the devil they know to the devil they don't." Change, no matter how good its intentions, results in disruption. Conservatives weigh the disruption when discerning whether the change is merited. Conservatives believe in making decisions in part based on how it affects later generations. The do not believe we should burden our children and children's children with debt and with problems we've left unresolved out of lack of leadership and political cowardice.<br /><p>Conservatives in the United States respect the Constituion. It limits the government, it protects our liberty. We cannot get rid of habeas corpus, we cannot get rid of the right to a fair trial, in the name of national defense. Liberty is valued above security. "Live free or die." They value the federal system setup in the Constitution. One of its great merits, besides protecting us from tyranny, is that it allows individual states to experiment with changes without risking the whole nation. If a state tries a new approach and succeeds, then it can spread to other states. If they try and fail, then we all learn from their mistake. Conservatives believe local people are better suited to make decisions that affect them locally then any national institution.</p><p>Conservatives, I would submit, should be associated with conservation. We inherited the earth and all its beauty and yes, all its resources from our ancestors. We must likewise keep in mind that our children, our children's children, and their children, will inherit what we leave or don't leave behind. We wouldn't want to leave them a bankrupt government, nor should we want to leave them a bankrupt environment. It would be a shame if our grand-children aren't able to experience the great outdoors because of our action or inaction. We are stewards of this earth, not owners. God gave us the earth for our use but also with the responsibility to take care of it. In addition to allowing our ancestors to have the same priveledge of enjoying the great outdoors, of visiting national parks and snorkeling through corral reefs, there is also the economic impact to consider. We must also conserve the environment so that we will continue to have its renewable resources. We must conserve because climate change can hurt the economy. Conservatives should be at the forefront of conservation, working towards solutions that protect the earth and help our economy. We should remember President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican and a conservationist, who set aside 150 million acres of national parks and nature preserves. When Congress went to block him in 1907 he slipped in 16 million acres the night before by executive order.</p><p>Conservatives know that the health of a state, particularly a democratic state, rests upon the virtue, knowledge, and wisdom of the people. And so conservatives see the need for a good education system. Besides keeping taxes low its one of the few positive things the government can actually do for the economy. Having well-educated people will only be more important for getting jobs in the globalized economy as time goes on. This is essential if people are to be responsible for their lives. Students should also graduate knowing how to handle their money as well, in order to avoid credit card debt and the repeat of the subprime mortgage crisis. But education is not just about getting people ready for successful careers in order to make lots of money and thus stimulate the economy. A good education system must create citizens, not just consumers. The children in school today will one day be choosing our leaders, some of them will eventually be our leaders. They must be ready to take that responsibility seriously and cast their sacred ballots. That requires knowing how our government work and knowing history to avoid repeating mistakes of the past. Education must develop students' minds, shape them, make them think critically, even if it means they start questioning their education, especially if it means they start questioning their education. Even if we pump out students with technical skills, we are failing students if they can't think critically. Conservatives believe in an education system which benefits the students.</p><p>Conservatives recognize it is both the right and duty of a sovereign state to protect and defend their borders. The government has the right to know and control who crosses the border, and indeed they ought to do so. There are many people from around the world who desire to come to these United States, and it is unfair to them to simply let people cut in line and sneak across the borders. It is, more importantly, a national security issue. We need to know who is in the United States. Conservatives also recognize that our economy is dependent on immigration to fill jobs, and thus see the need to allow legal immigration via a guest worker program while cracking down on illegal immigration. Conservatives think that we need to crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants, which will put a stop to people coming here in the first place. We definitely differ on what to do with those already here. Many have sympathy for those illegal aliens who are here and already have families and would rather pardon them than uproot them and send them home. Others conservatives think that the only way to put a stop to illegal immigration is to send a message by deporting those here. Its alright to have disagreements. We can disagree on the particulars and still be conservative, as long as we recognize the need to address illegal immigration and can arrive at a compromise solution that will take the necessary steps towards putting a stop to it.</p><p>I've tried to capture the essence of conservatism. I hoped to show how conservatism is a framework in which each policy fits, rather than a seemingly random collection of different stances. It is by no means complete nor will every self-described conservative agree with all of what I stated. As I said at the beginning, the nature of conservatism means there will be variation in conservative's views.</p>Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-21922383173836746912008-02-04T12:35:00.000-05:002008-02-04T12:35:17.404-05:00Reforming Health Care: Part 3 - Why A Government-Run Monopoly Is Wrong For AmericaThere has been much talk about the United States being the only developed country without some sort of socialized health care. We spend the most on health care but don't get comparable results, they say. How do we survive, one might ask. Although our current system is at best mere survival, I would strongly disagree that a government run system is the solution.<br /><br />First off, lets ask what is uniquely different between the United States with our private insurance system and other developed nations with a form of government run insurance, as it amounts to. Advocates in the United States seem to think that we will magically start spending less money on health care if we switch to socialized health care. This is not true. People in other countries are much healthier than Americans. In essence, our obesity makes us uniquely American. People in Europe don't have car-centric societies, they use public transportation and walk a lot more. (To be fair, Europe is more densely populated and so public transportation makes more fiscal sense to build light rail, etc.) They also eat healthier, not necessarily because they don't ever eat fattening food, but they eat in moderation, we eat fattening food to excess. To a large degree, we spend so much on health care because we have to treat preventable diseases caused by obesity, whereas countries in Europe do not. If we switch to a government run system then those costs do not go away. We don't have a health insurance problem so much as a health problem. Higher health care costs from obesity drive up insurance premiums, which drive people out of the system. Socialized medicine does nothing to fix this.<br /><br />Second, lets look at how advocates say socialized health care costs save money. They say that a government run system is more efficient. There is less overhead, no marketing costs and no profits. To that I pose this question, what is so unique about the health care industry that would cause the same reasoning of lower costs do to lack of profits, marketing costs, and other overhead from applying to any other industry? Why should we in the United States not have a government run telephone system? You get the same thing no matter what provider, the ability to talk with another person, so why do we need so many competing companies? Cingular, Verizon, and other companies compete against each other for customers, which requires spending money on advertising, and all of them make profits. So why not cut them out and have the government provide our cell phone service? No profits and no advertising means lower bills. Why stop there? What about air travel? Do we really need all these different airlines when they all do the same thing of getting you from point A to point B, albeit some better than others. Then your frequent flier miles will work for any flight. I could keep listing examples, but I think you get the idea. So, when we carry this idea through to its logical end, what do we end up with? The USSR. The USSR failed though. But why, they don't have advertising costs and profits to make?<br /><br />Supply and demand. Ceteris paribus, price determines the quantity demanded and price determines the supply provided. Communism failed to realize this. They couldn't set the right price, the right supply, and they definitely couldn't set the right demand. There's either surpluses or shortages. But under capitalism, competition sets the right price, the right supply produced, the right quantity demanded. (Not perfectly, but better than communism.) Now capitalism only works for the consumer when you have competition. Competition keeps the price down because you can't charge too much because another company will undercut your prices, stealing your customers. When there is no competition you have a monopoly which can set the price much higher than consumers would like, hence anti-trust laws. Socializing health care would result in a government monopoly, not any better than a corporate monopoly.<br /><br />John Edwards has said that he would be create government insurance packages that people could choose to buy modeled on medicare. "American health consumers will decide which works best. It could continue to be divided. But it could go in one direction or the other, and one of the directions is obviously government or single-payer. And I’m not opposed to that." He should be opposed to that. Sure, initially a government system would be able to cost less by foregoing profits, etc., and drive private insurance companies out of business. Its the after the private insurance companies are driven out of business that concerns me. Just like we don't allow corporate monopolies because they're bad for consumers, we shouldn't allow a government monopoly of health insurance. After the private insurance companies are put out of business because they like every other business in America must make a profit to survive, what will set prices when the government doesn't have a target to beat, private insurance prices? What will determine the level of quality that can be provided when there is no target to beat? Need I remind you of how good the USSR was at setting prices without competition? In a few years the government will fail to invest in new innovative technologies that could lower costs and raise quality since they don't have to respond to competition. We will have a stagnant and then decaying health care system. I might point out that corporations take profits and reinvest them. If the government plan doesn't take profits then they won't have money to reinvest and that will either not happen or the costs will be added to your tax bill.<br /><br />If anything is wrong with our private health care system with competing companies then it is that there is not enough competition. Employers choose health plans, not the consumers who have to use them. If we had a system that gave consumers choice and information (definitely lacking today) then I think we would see costs lower and quality rise. I've already addressed this issue so I will refer you to my health insurance plan that would introduce more competition while putting people in the system, not pushing out the sick. (<a href="http://www.blogger.com/thegregariousblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/reforming-health-care-part-i-evil.html">Reforming Health Care - Part 1 - Evil Insurance Corporations</a>, <a href="http://thegregariousblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/reforming-health-care-part-2.html">Reforming Health Care - Part 2 - Preventative Measures and Insurance</a>)Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-71747897590110030422008-02-01T14:28:00.000-05:002008-02-02T12:56:02.893-05:00Taking The High Costs Out Of Higher Education - Innovative Ways To Reduce U of L's BudgetThe governor of Kentucky this week announced a 12% cut to higher education. This is a very drastic cut. It’s not just asking us to tighten our belt buckles, but to cut off the excess belt and sell it, and sell the remaining belt and buckle to advertisers. Now although I very much intend to delve into this cut, and where it shows our priorities lie, (and don't lie) that will have to wait for another post. Today, I'm putting forward some ideas I have for cutting the costs of higher education here at the University of Louisville, and more broadly at other universities in Kentucky and the United States. Many of these I would be for even in times of economic boon, but especially now that we have a budget cut we need to take innovative approaches.<br /><br />1- Cut the insanely, ridiculously high mandatory meal plan. When I was a Freshman I was required to purchase an $850 per semester meal plan. (per semester!) There was no way I could spend it all on my own, nor should I have to have spent that much of my money at U of L's poor food services. I had to buy food for friends, and then at the end of the year by a bunch of overpriced groceries, to keep our food service (Chartwells) from getting free money. But now it’s gone up to $1000 per semester. It’s not a question of if tuition will go up, but by what insanely huge amount. Reducing the meal plan would put real money into student's pockets, helping to offset some of the tuition increase. Just cutting back to the level when I was a freshman would save residential Freshman $300. It’s the least we can do, and it doesn't take much to do it.<br /><br />2- Another easy thing we can do to help students in lieu of a major tuition increase is stop going to new edition of textbooks that are almost identical as the old edition. It’s no secret that textbook manufacturers make money by releasing new editions. Let’s say no to this, at least for the next couple of years while our budget is cut and tuition extra high. Professors should have to show a legitimate reason for requiring a new book.<br /><br />3 - Get rid of our current, crappy e-mail system. Most students don't use it for their primary e-mail, most just have it forward e-mail to their personal account. I only log in to clear it out every so often. There are plenty of free options out there, my favorite Gmail, let’s just use them. Believe it or not, there are universities that have switched to Gmail. Google takes over, they keep the same domain name, e.g. louisville.edu, and the same addresses, customize the logo, etc., all for FREE. We should not continue to pay for a dissatisfactory service that doesn't have enough storage. (And if you go to U of L you know the spam filter for all our money isn't even built in, you have to login to another system.) We could use Gmail for free and get gigs of storage. Take our backroom operations and make them someone else's front room operations.<br /><br />4- Gmail of course makes money by showing ads based on your e-mail. So along those lines, put advertisements on our other online systems, (e.g. Ulink, Blackboard) to help pay for them, if not make money. And while we're on advertising, put ads up on campus, especially on those wasted flat panel TVs that show the weather. (I've obviously already been outside, I know the weather)<br /><br />5- Corporate sponsorship. Anything a company is willing to pay for, let them. It’s happening in sports, why not in the world of academia. Sell the naming rights to buildings on campus. How about the KFC Student Activities Center? We can't make people change what they call places, but guarantee everything in official university communication their name will come up with the mention of their building. Hell, if they offer enough, sell the naming rights to U of L. "Papa John's University of Louisville?"<br /><br />6- Advisors, what do they really do. So far, I've haven't been impressed with most of my advisors. (A few were ok.) They seem to just rubber stamp your schedule rather than truly guide you. We should develop a dynamic online system for aiding students in picking out classes. It could check your proposed classes against your transcript to make sure you meet the prerequisites and check against your degree requirements. If you don't have a prerequisite you would either change or fill out an online form seeking an exception. And if it doesn't meet a requirement or its one you've already done, it would confirm that you are aware of this and let you either change or continue. Additionally, you could enter in the classes you want to take and have it generate some different possibilities that don't conflict. And as you make changes it would eliminate choices. This would useful even if we didn't have a budget crisis. No one enjoys firing people, (besides Donald Trump) but with a 12% cut in funding some hard choices are going to have to be made. Between keeping professors and keeping advisors, I choose professors. The remaining advisors could respond to exemptions, e-mails, phone calls, and requests for face-to-face meetings. Or, perhaps we could outsource some of this advising, or have student volunteers from each major provide advice, and cut the number of advisors down further. If we implement this with the help of all the current advisors, they can put the development and implementation of an online advising system on their resume and use it to get a better job elsewhere. In effect, they digitalize their own job, and could do the same elsewhere for more money.<br /><br />7- Push online classes. Do we really need to be spending so much money so students can sleep through lectures with hundreds of other students? Those classes are prime targets for being done online. Technology has advanced enough to make this possible. No more falling asleep in an 8 am class. No more straining your eyes to read your professor's horrible handwriting on the chalkboard or text on PowerPoints that are too small for the room, just peruse your professor PowerPoints notes on your computer at home. Submit your homework online. Of course, you would have to come in occasionally to take tests, which maintains the credibility of online classes. Right now at U of L they charge more for online courses, even if you're full time. Online classes should cost less for U of L to run, if not we're doing them wrong. We should be encouraging online classes, not discouraging them through higher costs. We can market this not as a budget cost, but as a benefit of coming to U of L. "Your schedule shouldn't be flexible to class, but your class should be flexible to you." I'm not saying U of L should move all our classes online. I'm saying we should offer classes where there is not participation, not discussion, but just your professor lecturing in an online format. A lot of your higher classes in your major would probably stay as physical classes for the time.<br /><br />8- Going hand in hand with online classes is the outsourcing of grading of homework, quizzes, and tests. Right now U of L has fired student graders. You can't tell me that won't affect what assignments your professors give you. If I were a professor I would move towards multiple choice scantrons and questions with one right, clear cut answer. Partial credit, not my problem. If outsourcing grading of some work would allow professors to have graders then its better than nothing. Submitting homework online would be pretty essential for this to simplify the process and allow for speedy processing of your assignments. If ran right the time between turning in an assignment and getting it back graded would decrease, maybe even to the next day. Another thing to do is have homework be filled in on a site so that a computer can grade it, and then you challenge anything you think the computer missed because of spelling, etc.<br /><br />9- We can't just push the envelope anymore, we have to push beyond the envelope. Mailing costs too much, use e-mail. U of L sends out late notices via snail mail. These mailings for me go to my parents' house, my permanent address, not where I live during my time at college, and I don't find out for several weeks that I have forgotten to return a book. If that was done via e-mail (at least for a couple of weeks) it would not only save mailing costs, it would speed up the return of books and other materials. This can be applied across the board. Besides legally required mailings, and marketing material to potential students (we wouldn't want to look cheap), we should be doing mass mailings via e-mail.<br /><br />10 - Every time I'm on campus late at night I notice the lights on in academic buildings, long closed. We are just throwing money away. We need to install motion sensors to turn lights off when people are absent. Some areas during the day are near windows and when the sun is shining bright could do without artificial light. So we also need ambient light sensors. Do we really need lights on in stairwells with windows during the day? Another place that could cut power, deserted book stacks in the library. Perhaps we could add solar panels too, if they can be shown to be fiscally feasible in Kentucky's climate. The initial costs to get these energy savings could perhaps be paid for using bonds, with would be paid off with a portion of the energy savings.<br /><br />11 - Along with the cutting of our electric bill, if we aren't already expand recycling and use it as a way to cut waste disposal costs. We can either have the recycling taken away for free or even get paid for it, depending on how much effort we're willing to go to. Many large companies have turned to recycling to cut costs. Use these efforts to market U of L as a green university, turn cost cutting efforts into a marketing advantage. "U of L is turning green." "Green is U of L." "Green is the new red." I'm sure there are other efforts that could go into this. We should require all new campus buildings to be eco-friendly. (Not that there is going to be many new buildings with a 12% budget cut.) It's no longer enough to think outside the box, we have to get out if it and sell it for recycling because boxes cost too much.<br /><br />12- Get rid of phones in the dorms. Most people today have cell phones. When I was living in the dorm I hardly ever used my dorm phone. I gave people my cell phone number and called people from my cell phone even when in my room. I'm sure I'm not the only one. If someone doesn't have a cell phone they can take their savings from not having a landline and apply that<br />to a cell phone. Or use Skype, etc. Or perhaps U of L could switch to running phones through the ethernet, surely that would save money and preserve dorm phones. One of the newer residence halls I stayed in did that, so apply that across campus.<br /><br />13- Considering the cost of campus housing, there is no way building a new dormitory or residential hall doesn't pay for itself in a few years. So, increase on campus housing either by encouraging private businesses to do it or sell bonds to build them, to be paid off using the revenue from rent. We know that there is more housing demanded than U of L has, so this is a pretty sure bet as you can get that you will have increased revenue. Those bonds could perhaps be coupled with bonds to cover a system to turn of lights and other energy saving efforts. Perhaps a parking garage could be covered by those as well.<br /><br />14- Encourage high schoolers to take new online college classes to get a leg up. More revenue, self-explanatory.<br /><br />15 -Stop charging to pay tuition via credit card. We should be encouraging people to make payments online, cutting out paperwork, cutting overhead. If anything, lets either require payments be made online, (if you don't have a credit or debit card to put it on you could always provide your bank account routing number from your check) and charge to process paper checks. Students have access to computers on campus, so lack of access is no excuse. While we're at it, cut down the number of check writing by payroll by requiring all employees paid via direct deposit, and get rid of paper stubs. If they don't have a checking account then they can get one.<br /><br />16- Conduct season ticket sales online. It used to be tickets were given on a first-come, first-serve basis and people camped out to get good tickets. Last year we switched to a lottery system to give tickets away, but you still had to show up at a certain time. When they got rid of the need to camp out they got rid of the need to conduct ticket sales in person. It’s a chaotic, inefficient process that needs to go. You stand in long lines to pay with a physical check or credit card number on a form filled in by hand. If you can't make it at that particular time and date you get screwed. Lets conduct it online, give a couple day window to go online, fill out an electronic form for everyone in a group seeking tickets together, enter in a credit card number or bank routing number, and let computers, not people do the work. It would save money, it would save time of both U of L and students, and it would reduce stress. This one makes sense no matter the budget situation.<br /><br />17- Outsource tech support. I shouldn't be able to call tech support and hear an American voice on the other line. Additionally, besides switching to Gmail, we could see about outsourcing all of our IT to a company who specializes in that, if it will save money and improve service.<br /><br />18- I would say cut orientation down to one day, no overnight stay, or better yet move it online, but I'm pretty certain U of L makes money off that. If that's not the case then get rid of it.<br /><br />19- When it warms up shut off hot water to buildings where it’s not necessary. So, everywhere besides residential halls, the Student Activity Center since the gym is there and people don't want cold showers, the natatorium for the same reason, and maybe some of the buildings with labs depending upon the type of research. (Who knows what they're developing in the Belknap Research Building.) You don't have to have hot water for washing your hands, that's a luxury.<br /><br />20 – This would go along with the online classes. Grad classes need to be offered online. At my workplace in Louisville, I know people who were getting Master's Degrees that the company pays for from schools hours away since they could do it online rather than physically show up for class at a particular time. That is lost money.<br /><br />Just For Fun<br />1- Lease Miller Hall (probably the worse dorm on campus) out as a minimum security prison. Win-win for the state and for U of L.<br />2- Require tuition to be paid in Euros<br />3- Cut all sports that don't make money or at least break even.<br />4- On all tests add this question: "What's a 16 digit number that will provide U of L with $20?" (5% of grade)<br />5- Shut off AC and sell cold drinks outside of class.<br />6- Add "volunteer" hours as a requirement to degrees. Coincidentally, there will be many new "volunteer" "opportunities" on campus with all the layoffs.<br /><br />There's how I would cut costs at U of L. I doubt these would add up to all our lost money from the state, but I think these would help. (I guess it depends in part on how many online classes we push, and how many professors we layoff because we have less classes to cover on a daily basis.) Drastic times call for drastic measures. A few thousand dollars here, a few thousand there add up. No cost is too small to consider cutting. As I mentioned, many of these make sense even if there wasn't a budget crisis, and some of these would actually result in improved quality. I tried to stick with things that wouldn't result in lower quality, although I'm sure those cuts are coming.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-59321596329614741212008-01-30T19:16:00.000-05:002008-01-30T19:53:02.577-05:00America's Economic Stimulus Package: Banking On Your StupidityYesterday, the House (not the Senate) passed a $146 billion economic stimulus package. You, if you're a taxpayer, can expect a rebate of $600 to $1200 once it clears Congress. (depending on whether you're filing separately or jointly, and your income level) There are also tax cuts for businesses, allowing them to write off loses over the past several years, thus encouraging more spending than they otherwise would be able to do. But as far at the personal rebates go, the idea is that Americans' will go out and spend that money, giving a boost to our retail-dependent economy.<br /><br />Is spending that $600 or $1200 on a new HD flat screen TV really the most financially prudent decision during a possible recession? What individuals would be better off doing is saving that money, especially considering most Americans' savings are lacking. Congress's and the President's plan is banking on Americans' stupidity, hoping that they will do the irresponsible thing and spend it frivolously rather than save it. (saving would defeat the whole point of the stimulus) That's how much your government thinks of the average citizen, or should I say consumer. It would after all be fair, I think, to say that we starting to think less of ourselves as citizens and more as consumers. What's the most patriotic thing you can do right now according to your government, shop 'til you drop. Why don't we just send out gift cards, that way no one wastes their money on their 401(k)s.<br /><br />If I had to guess, we're probably going to borrow this $146 billion from overseas. I question the wisdom of adding that much more to our national debt for a short-term stock market high. Seems like we would be better off trying to pay it off rather than keep maxing out our national credit card. (Fortunately for the US government, and the world economy, Congress can just raises the credit limit whenever we get near defaulting. Don't you wish you could do that with your card?)<br /><br />On top of that, the Federal Reserves dropped interest rates again today, another 1/2 point down to 3%. It could just be me, but I seem to remember a certain sub-prime mortgage problem. Did we not have our economy come crashing down in part because money was so cheap and people were borrowing when they shouldn't have been because offers were too good to be true. How is this going to help prevent that situation from happening again?<br /><br />That said, on behalf of my 401(k) I'm going to have to ask you to ignore everything I've said and go spend your rebate, and not on anything like groceries. It's the American thing to do, after all. If only we could forget about the alleged recession, spend like normal, then the high consumer confidence would drive up the stock market and pull us out of the recession, allowing us to afford the spending in the first place. Makes perfect sense, right?Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-28498380330857493662008-01-29T22:37:00.001-05:002008-01-29T22:41:53.019-05:00Giuliani In Memoriam<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLy9gZKhEjZ6mE8Aqjo5syLk0VI0sZZbWFnKCcRq5R3J9rCbTT7EaF7IrjDr_8E4rIz76sjnhLxAm7O-fjeH5re04pR3Jn8k0624BbUhxg3aUozktJi42eN7NMDwtuwo1pruGn5g/s1600-h/Giuliani+RIP2.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5161109097417992450" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLy9gZKhEjZ6mE8Aqjo5syLk0VI0sZZbWFnKCcRq5R3J9rCbTT7EaF7IrjDr_8E4rIz76sjnhLxAm7O-fjeH5re04pR3Jn8k0624BbUhxg3aUozktJi42eN7NMDwtuwo1pruGn5g/s400/Giuliani+RIP2.bmp" border="0" /></a>Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-47654524145378659962008-01-25T19:29:00.000-05:002008-01-25T22:35:07.028-05:00Voter ID Laws: Preventing Fraud or Preventing Voting?The Supreme Court is hearing a case about a law in Indiana requiring citizen's to show a photo ID (specifically one issued by the state or federal government) in order to vote. Advocates of the law say its to prevent voter fraud. If you're required to show a photo ID then you can't impersonate someone and vote, and thus protect the integrity of elections. Opponents say that it would disproportionately affect the poor, the elderly, and the minorities, those least likely to have a photo ID.<br /><br />I would argue that the Constitution prevents no grounds for striking down such a law. Technically speaking, you have no right to vote for President. First off, we don't elect the president or vice president, we elect electors who elect the President. But the Constitution leaves the method of choosing electors in the hands of the States.<br /><br /><a name="2.1.2"></a><em>(from Article II, Section 1) Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.</em><br /><em></em><br />If a state wanted to, it could have all its potential electors play Twister until the number of electors a state is apportioned are left standing. Now I'm sure the people of such a state would have objections to that, and the Legislature that implemented that would be voted out, but that's not the point. Now, the Constitution has been amended several times, so let's look at some of the potentially relevant clauses.<br /><br /><em>(from Amendment XXIV, Section 1) The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.</em><br /><br /><em>(from Amendment XXVI, Section 1) The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.</em><br /><em></em><br />One might say that these clauses show a right to vote for President. No, I think to take this literally it says if one does have a primary for President, or an election for electors for President, that you can't deny them the right to vote because of a failure to pay a poll or other tax. Nor, in an election in a state (for any position, national or local) can the government of the United States or the state prohibit you (if you're 18 years or older) from voting because of age. So again, if they have an election for electors in the Electoral College, then you can't be denied the right to vote because of age. But you don't have right to have an election for electors of the President in which to vote.<br /><br />So, states choose how the choose their electors for the President. If a state does have an election for those electors, then people 18 years of age or older have the right to vote and a poll tax can't be put in place. Requiring a photo ID is within the power of Indiana's legislature, according to the US Constitution.<br /><br />That said, I think it is very reasonable for a state to require a photo ID to prove you are who you say you are when voting in order to prevent voter fraud. Some states require IDs with a signature. I quite frankly don't see how that stops voter fraud. It does about as much good as requiring a signature on a receipt when you pay using a credit card. If someone wanted to they could copy your signature. Others require a sworn affidavit that you are who you claim to be if you don't show an ID. That's even better, if I'm committing voter fraud having to lie about who I say I am is definitely going to stop me. Does someone have to break a law before you can try to prevent it from happening?<br /><br />Some people have objected saying that people in Indiana can mail in an absentee ballot without showing an ID, so why the ID rule when you show up in person. If you're going to commit fraud you would be stupid to show up in person and risk being caught, instead you would just cast an absentee ballot. OK then, get rid of absentee ballots and require if you're going to vote you have to show up in person. Case closed.<br /><br />Some have objected that there are not cases of this voter fraud taking place. Well, if you don't need a photo ID to vote then how would you know someone is an impostor, and how would you get statistics on voter fraud? The Presidential election in 2000 and 2004 were both close in many states. A few fraudulent votes could tip the balance to another candidate. We need to be able to trust the results of our elections if our democracy is to function. Just take a look at a place like Kenya where the election result was disputed.<br /><br />Now as far as not having an ID is somehow a tax. A state can set a deadline for voting sometime before an election; you don't have a right to show up on the day of an election and vote without having registered to vote. This implies that a state can require persons to have some intent of voting before an election. Now if you have to take time to register in advance, I think it is not unreasonable to take the time to get a photo ID if you want to vote. Voting is a sacred privilege, and should be taken seriously. If you care enough to vote you should care enough to get a photo ID. These "voting right advocates" are really doing a disservice to minority, elderly, and poor voters by giving them a false hope that they won't need a photo ID. By the time the Supreme Court rules, they will have even less time to get a photo ID before the next election. I read about someone who was born at home and not in a hospital, and may not even have a birth certificate, or at the very least it would cost $50 to get a certified copy in order to get an ID. That's their problem. If $5o in order to vote for the rest of your life isn't worth it, then you don't deserve to vote. Freedom isn't free. I'd have to agree with Justice Kennedy, "You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?"Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-65483372619373223102008-01-09T18:45:00.000-05:002008-01-09T19:19:53.332-05:00Prime Time Self-Destruction On The Way For Republicans?So far we have two caucuses and one primary down for the Republicans. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Huckabee</span> won Iowa, Romney got Wyoming (not that anyone but him really cares about that), and McCain won New Hampshire to die another day. The Republican field is in chaos. There is no <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">front runner</span>. Romney could win Michigan, his home state, which would <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">definitely</span> keep him going. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Huckabee</span> is poised to take South Carolina through the evangelical vote. Giuliani is waiting in Florida, the chaos <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">definitely</span> a plus for him if he is to have a chance. Then we have Super Tuesday on February 5<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">th</span>, who knows will happen there. It is quite possible those states will be split up throughout the field. Perhaps <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Huckabee</span> gets the states with a large evangelical population, McCain the states with primaries open to independents, and Romney and Giuliani split large, closed states.<br /><br />What if no one gets a majority of delegates? That possibility may seem far fetch, but I feel its becoming more and more real. I haven't heard the media talking about it yet, but its not without the realm of possibility. (Which is why I'm saying it now, so I can beat the media to it and say I told you so if it happens. Not too mention the media wasn't right about New Hampshire.) If that happens then the Republican Party won't have a nominee going into the Republican National Convention. How would we get a nominee there? The delegates keep casting ballots until someone has a nominee. So candidates would be trying to steal each other's delegates and cut deals; a massive barbecue of the party with a lot of pork being offered from all sides. If that happens there goes the well-oiled, unified Republican machine in a flame of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">prime time</span> self-destruction with a record number of viewers. Makes for good TV, but for a lousy chance of winning in November.<br /><br />To makes matters worse, the convention isn't until Labor Day, leaving barely two months for the eventual nominee to run. The Convention is later this year since the Democrats are holding <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">their convention</span> later to avoid a conflict with the Olympics. The advantage this gives them probably an accident but if not, one of their most brilliant political moves, if this doomsday (if you're a Republican) scenario takes place.<br /><br />Hopefully, if no one has a majority the candidates will be able to work something out so that we can have a nominee before September, and avoid four nights of political <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">WWF</span>. Some candidate would hopefully offer their support to another in exchange for a vice presidency. Although if <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Romney</span> is in the lead I don't know if he can offer a vice presidency to the other candidates after the beating they have given him. But who knows if this will even happen, we still have to get past Michigan next week.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-55231692091036301172008-01-05T13:35:00.000-05:002008-01-05T15:05:58.204-05:00Handicapping Politics: The Presidential Election Mapped OutToday, I'm going to take some time to write out my predictions for the presidential race. (so that on the rare chance I'm right I can have proof.)<br /><br />We're going into the New Hampshire primary Tuesday. On the Republican side, either McCain or Romney are out after it. McCain is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">definitely</span> out if he loses, Romney might keep throwing money at his dying campaign though if he loses, but is still ultimately done. My guess is McCain, he won the state in 2000 and there are <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">a lot</span> of independents (assuming enough vote in the Republican primary.)<br /><br />On the Democratic side, Clinton will be out if she doesn't pull of a win. Edwards is out if he can't pull of second place. All in all, I'm betting on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Obama</span> again because of the independents and his momentum from Iowa. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Huckabee</span> needs McCain to win to get rid of Romney. (politics makes strange bedfellows) If <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Obama</span> does lose New Hampshire, a state he should get, to Clinton, he might be done with. Clinton will be able to claim she's the "comeback kid." He won't drop out yet though. I think Edwards will come in third and be eliminated since he has an anti-corporation message that won't carry in New Hampshire, a state that is more adapted to globalization than Iowa and thus depended upon globalization.<br /><br />So on the Republican side it will be <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Huckabee</span> versus McCain as we go into Michigan and South Carolina. (or Romney if he wins NH) Giuliani is holding off until Florida. I personally don't feel his strategy of ignoring the first few states and waiting until the big states and Super Tuesday is going to work. (If it did and he won the nomination, Iowa and New Hampshire wouldn't forgive him for ignoring them.) Giuliani right now needs <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Huckabee</span> to do well, so he'll take votes away from McCain in Michigan and South Carolina. McCain is screwed in South Carolina, he lost there in 2000, the large evangelical population will deliver <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Huckabee</span> a win there. That will probably eliminate McCain, although if he wins Michigan he might be able to keep going. (Michigan a must win for McCain. If <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Huckabee</span> were to lose South Carolina he's out, that's a must win for him.) That means <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Huckabee</span> (possibly McCain as well but probably not) versus Giuliani (which Giuliani wants) in Florida and on Super Tuesday. (It would probably aid <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Huckabee</span> more if McCain did campaign in Florida before he gives up.) After Super Tuesday we have a nominee. I'm betting and hoping on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Huckabee</span>. It should be pointed out the traditional Republican establishment is against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Huckabee</span>, so he is fighting that.<br /><br />On the Democratic side, Clinton will have been knocked out effectively in New Hampshire, although she probably won't drop out, she's got the Clinton legacy riding on her. Edwards needs Clinton gone to have a shot. I think <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Obama</span> though wins against Edwards or even Clinton is she stays in. The black vote will go for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Obama</span> in South Carolina. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Definitely</span> by Super Tuesday, although my guess is before that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Obama</span> has the nomination effectively sealed.<br /><br />This brings us to the general election, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Obama</span> versus <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Huckabee</span>. (I'm more willing to bet on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Obama</span> getting the Democratic nomination than <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Huckabee</span> the Republican, for the record.) To be honest, the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Republicans</span> have an uphill battle no matter the nominees. I think <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Obama</span> wins against any one the Republicans throw at him. On the other hand, if I'm wrong and Clinton won, its more up in the air, she's a polarizing figure. As a Republican I hope she gets the Democratic nomination. I don't think Edwards wins the Democratic nomination, but it would be easier for the Republicans if he won over <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Obama</span> as well. McCain might have a better shot at the general than <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Huckabee</span>, if he could get the nomination. He would certainly stress his foreign policy credentials, obviously not important in a time of war. However, a Republican president got us into it, and so the electorate might not trust any Republican to get us out.<br /><br />The last time a sitting senator was elected president was 1960, JFK. Its immensely hard for a senator to win because they have a voting record. I think the clamor for change could probably outweigh that factor. Whatever Republican wins the nomination is going to have the make the case that they are a candidate of change. I think <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Huckabee</span> could make that case. What worries me about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Huckabee</span>, even though I support him, is that he could be perceived as the evangelical candidate. He won 46% of the evangelical vote, but only 14% of the non-evangelical vote in Iowa. Obviously a large part of the Republican party is evangelical, which helps him get the nomination, but could hurt him in the general. He will have to overcome that perception, allowing him to keep the evangelical vote and motivate them to come to the polls, but not let that define his candidacy so he can grab moderates. He is not the typical Republican, so he'll have to work to grab the economic conservatives. He is very articulate, so I think he a good shot of doing that. As David Gregory of NBC News said on a panel, he hears <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Huckabee</span> talking about his faith in a way that is not exclusive and is how many people see their faith and is thus appealing. That's a good thing if he's going to win.<br /><br />So if I were betting, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Obama</span> wins, but I want and hope <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">Huckabee</span> wins.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-24838886698234943702008-01-03T12:16:00.000-05:002008-01-03T12:24:55.869-05:00How the heck does the Iowa Caucus work anyways?If you don't live in Iowa, chances are you probably have no idea how the Iowa Caucus's actually work. Here's a video from CBS News that does a pretty good job of explaining it. (it even has animations) I suppose I could have written an explanation of the process, but why reinvent the wheel?<br /><br /><object height="355" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fobO82jbNRg&rel=1"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fobO82jbNRg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-15679730714037361342007-12-18T23:05:00.000-05:002008-01-03T02:02:29.130-05:00It Doesn't Matter Who You Caucus For, Just Caucus (for Mike Huckabee)With only a few hours until the Iowa caucuses, time is ticking down. McCain may have gotten the Des Moines Register's endorsement, but Mike Huckabee gets my endorsement. Mike Huckabee has climbed out of nowhere, which threatens to change my opinion of our primary system. Iowans, if you choose Huckabee I will support your state being the wine tasters of American presidents. And if that propels Huckabee to the Republican nomination, I will stop being for all the primaries on one day. But this blog isn't about our primary system, that's a whole separate topic, its about why Mike Huckabee is the right choice for America.<br /><br />Huckabee is for the fair tax. The fair tax would get rid of the IRS, income taxes, payroll taxes, death taxes, capital gains and replace it with a national sales tax, meaning your money is only taxed once. I don't know about you, but I like the idea of getting rid of the IRS and filing for taxes. This probably deserves a whole blog of its own, (along with every other issue) but I'll hold off for now. But before you object to it being a tax increase on the poor, there would be a prebate to the poverty line, making it a progressive tax system.<br /><br /><br />When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he improved the state's education. Huckabee supports the arts in school, "weapons of mass instruction" as he calls them, which would help us to be creative and competitive. "Art and music are as important as math and science because the dreamers and visionaries among us take the rough straw of an idea and spin it into the gold of new businesses and jobs. It is as important to identify and encourage children with artistic talent as it is those with athletic ability. Our future economy depends on a creative generation." I could go on but will let you research yourself.<br /><br />Huckabee is for moving from a sick care system to a health care system. That is to say, preventative medicine instead of treating problem after they arise, when they are more serious and cost more to fix. And he would know, he is like the Jared of politics, he lost over 100 pounds. He's a living example of his plan to address the health crisis we're facing, not just the health care crisis we're facing.<br /><br />I could delve further, and probably will eventually, but instead I'd urge you to check out what Mike Huckabee has to say yourself. <a href="http://www.mikehuchabee.com/">www.mikehuchabee.com</a> If you're a Iowa resident, go caucus and go caucus for Mike Huckabee.Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30851869.post-36259451287485643692007-11-22T01:01:00.000-05:002007-11-22T01:06:43.277-05:00Pardoning The Turkey: A Tradition of Injustice<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhacGulzJEll_N2uWgqxcrpTtis_d_pq7lllTtlcGUncXuOJy_PqLSGp9OLeZ12l5zyZ9dl-GSBymIMAvLyZ-AicIT4b8ePxVQbX6Tk0qPvUj0gr1IdRb8_cdNyzULcyfnjSyiByA/s1600-h/turkey.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5135541903990051074" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhacGulzJEll_N2uWgqxcrpTtis_d_pq7lllTtlcGUncXuOJy_PqLSGp9OLeZ12l5zyZ9dl-GSBymIMAvLyZ-AicIT4b8ePxVQbX6Tk0qPvUj0gr1IdRb8_cdNyzULcyfnjSyiByA/s200/turkey.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><div>This Thanksgiving, a day where we give thanks for our blessings before we go out and buy new things for which to give thanks and thus bless the nation's bottom line, I could have chosen to blog about the top ten things I'm thankful for, or have posted the words of Abraham Lincoln from when he commenced this national day of thanks. Or something else that would leave you with a warm feeling inside to put you asleep after eating turkey with tryptophan. (at least I like to think it was the tryptophan) But my conscience wouldn't allow it.<br /><br />No, instead I choose to address the traditional presidential pardon of a turkey. This is an egregious injustice. What crime did the turkey ever commit? Unless all the turkeys are enemy combatants being detained without habeas corpus then they have committed no crime. That the turkey should be pardoned brings shame upon him and his family, everyone suspecting the worse about him, asking what he did to deserve a pardon. Far better is it to be a cooked turkey with a good reputation than a turkey at a petting farm with shame cast upon him.<br /><br />Why is not PETA outraged that a turkey is being pardoned for a crime it never committed and of which it was never convicted? Do they have something they care about more than the shame of an individual turkey? Obviously PETA tolerates this injustice because if a turkey is pardoned, that makes a turkey a person. They would be exuberant if a turkey was committed of a crime. Pardoning a turkey is a slippery slope to turkey citizens. We must put an end to this unconstitutional act. If turkeys are citizens with rights, then we can't kill and eat them. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. The real cruel and unusual punishment, not being able to eat them.<br /><br />This is why I will not vote for a vegetarian president. If the president can pardon one turkey, he could theoretically pardon them all. Hell, he could pardon all our livestock, and I like meat way too much to let that happen.<br /><br />On a related note, I wish we had gone with Benjamin Franklin's idea. He wanted the turkey to be the national bird. You know what that would have meant, succulent bald eagle for Thanksgiving Dinner. The turkey was going to do well regardless. But the bald eagle, if we were able to eat it wouldn't be endangered. Why's that? Because there would be bald eagle farms to provide us with bald eagle meat, keeping them around.<br /><br />I hope your conscience is not too troubled but this evil, if it is, drown out your woe with food if you haven't already. Remember, don't actually eat bald eagle, its against the law. (put in on advice of legal counsel) As for me, I'm thankful for those of you who read this blog. I leave you with the final words of Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation. "In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed."</div>Gregarioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01221690849684816367noreply@blogger.com1