tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58165720033063051622024-03-04T23:12:10.301-08:00The Ring of TruthThe truth shall set you free.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.comBlogger170125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-27527559028643111082012-06-07T06:52:00.000-07:002012-06-07T06:54:14.334-07:00Big EducationRadford University approved across-the-board tuition, fees, and room and board increases recently. Tuition will go up by 3.2% on top of last year’s 8.1% increase. The total average cost for a full time, undergraduate, in-state student for the 2012-2013 academic year go from $15,909 to about $16,600 depending on what room and meal plan is chosen.
UVA had a 3.7% increase recently for the up-coming school year. The total average annual cost there for a full-time student is now $25,400. At Tech, it’s $17,365.
According to a report from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), the average annual cost for a full time undergraduate resident in-state student in 2002 – 2003 was $9648. That’s an average for all of the Virginia state supported colleges and universities, so we can’t compare it to any individual institution; but, if we do a little quick math we see that the average annual cost next school year for Tech, UVA, and RU will be $19,558. Compared to the 2002-2003 data from the SCHEV report, there has been about a 100% increase in the last ten years. On average at those three institutions, a four-year college education will now cost roughly $80,000.
If this trend continues, as is likely, the cost will double again in the next ten years. We’ll be up to $160,000 on average for a college degree at Tech/UVA/RU.
In other states, the picture is similar.
By way of contrast, I estimate that my total four-year college education in the Engineering School at UVA cost in the range of $12,500. Total, for everything.
In this environment of skyrocketing costs, one would presume that colleges are having to drastically cut back on everything. However, if you visit any of these college and stroll around, you notice something odd. There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of money. These institutions don’t seem to be living on any a restricted budget. Quite the contrary, they seem to have plenty of money. At RU, a Taj Mahal of a building is being completed, at a cost of $44 million, to house the College of Business and Economics. Other RU buildings have undergone major renovations in recent years costing many millions of dollars. You see similar phenomena at Tech and UVA. There doesn’t seem to be any concern about where the money is going to come from. Meanwhile, tuition has gone ballistic.
Given all of this, do you hear any talk about “greedy big education” or “fat cat” college executives? Do you hear about price gouging? Are the “occupy” groups protesting ? Are there any calls for congressional investigations? Are college presidents being summoned to Washington or Richmond? Is anyone in the educational system being called to task?
No, none of that is happening, as with those evil Wall Street fat cats or with “big oil”. Big education is somehow immune.
The reason for this disparity is that big education is full of left-wing liberals and Marxists. Not all college and universities are dominated by liberal extremists, but by and large they are. Many college professors eagerly use their classroom to indoctrinate impressionable minds about the mean conservatives and the good liberals. Liberal politicians aren’t about to attack big education for out-of-control costs or for anything else. Liberal politicians know the vital role big education plays in furthering their political goals and in keeping them in office.
However, even the politicians can’t ignore those high tuitions. Their solution is to throw more money at colleges via the student loan program. Here’s how it works. Politicians take taxpayer money and loan it to college students so they can pay the sky-high costs. Students are encouraged to do this; you hear ads on radio and TV about the availability of government money for student loans. As a result, the students run up huge loan balances that will be a severe financial burden to them for the rest of their lives. The politicians then talk about the need for very low interest on those huge loan balances, or that the loans should be forgiven outright, or other relief programs. The former students then love those politicians for getting them out of their financial nightmare and they keep voting for those same politicians. The net result is that vast sums of money, much of it coming from the taxpayers, are shoveled toward the colleges. There is no significant public outcry about the ever-rising tuition and other costs, and the colleges roll merrily along turning out those liberal voters to perpetuate the whole thing.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-53134889648263364652012-04-13T14:16:00.003-07:002012-04-13T14:22:18.930-07:00It's Deja-vu All Over AgainHere we go again. When I filled my car’s gas tank yesterday, I paid $4.05 a gallon.<br /><br />High gas prices are a big drag on the economy, for many reasons. Closest to home, when we pay more at the pump, we have less to spend elsewhere, and that slows down the economy. People don’t drive to Myrtle Beach or other such places, they don’t buy airline tickets, thus hurting the leisure and tourist industries. <br /><br />There’s more. When you drive on I81, or almost any major highway anywhere in the country, what do you see? You see trucks, a lot of them. Almost everything that is in our house, barn, yard, garage, apartment, store, place of work, or anywhere else was on a truck at some point. Whatever can’t be moved on a truck gets put in a train or an airplane. Sometimes two or three of these modes of transportation are used for a single item (Fed Ex – UPS). When gas/diesel/aviation fuel prices go up, the additional cost is passed on to the price of all those things that get moved. Again, those higher prices of everything hinder the entire economy.<br /><br />Obama and his apologists have spent a lot of time recently saying that there is very little the President can do to lower gas prices.<br /> <br />However, the law of supply and demand has not been repealed. Everyone who has taken Economics 101 knows that if you want bring down the cost of something, you increase the supply.<br /><br />The United States has the largest recoverable resources of oil, gas, and coal of any country in the world. When you combine all of these, we are number one in the world! Consider:<br /><br />• America’s greatest concentration of untapped oil – an estimated 10 billion barrels – lies near the edge of Alaska’s 1.6 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR). <br />• We also have large untapped oil reserves off shore and in the Gulf of Mexico<br />• The U.S. is home to the richest, thickest oil shale deposits in the world. Estimates show that we have four times more recoverable oil resources in oil shale than Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves.<br />• The U.S. has the world’s largest coal reserves, nearly 29% of the world’s proven coal reserves.<br />• The U.S. is the world’s largest coal producer. If the total coal resources of the lower 48 states could be completely mined, it would be enough coal to last an astonishing 3900 years at current consumption rates.<br />• Our natural gas reserves, also found most commonly in underground shale formations, have grown significantly in recent years due to the use of hydraulic fracturing (fracking).<br />• In North Dakota, we are already accessing the productive Bakken Oil Shale Reserve, with an estimated yield on 500,000 to 750,000 barrels per day.<br />• The Michigan Basin is estimated to hold more than 282 million barrels of oil and 2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.<br />• The Marcellus Shale field in New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio and the Utica Shale in Ohio are just beginning to be studied.<br /><br />There is another drama playing out now that is very telling with regard to this claim that Obama can’t bring down the price of gas, and that is Obamacare. The Supreme Court is hearing a legal challenge to Obamacare, but that’s not the part of it relevant to this discussion. You will recall that during the extensive debate over Obamacare when it was being considered by Congress, one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, given as to why we must pass this law was that Obamacare would bring down the cost of health care overall. Obamacare was needed because it would lower the cost of health care, we were told over and over.<br /><br />Here we have the situation that back then Obama was absolutely sure he could bring down the cost of something as economically large and intractable as the entire health care system with his Obamacare, but now he is completely impotent when it comes to doing the same for energy and gas prices.<br /><br />The key to understanding this incoherence from Obama and crew, as I have said before, is to recognize that they WANT the price of gas and other conventional sources of energy to go up, so that then people will be willing to move to the much more expensive “green” energy. Obama’s Secretary of Energy even admitted this in 2008 when he told the Wall Street Journal, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe.” Obama has said that he wants to bankrupt the coal industry and that gas prices must necessarily skyrocket in order for his "cap and trade" scheme to work.<br /><br />That’s why Obama recently refused to approve the Keystone Pipeline that would bring much oil to us from Canada, and why he refuses to allow additional off-shore drilling and has cut the number of drilling permits issued per year in half. He doesn’t want more oil and the lower prices that would go with it. He wants less oil and higher gas prices, the economy be damned.<br /><br />After all, what’s more important - low energy prices, jobs, and economic prosperity; or following the dictates of the environment extremists about how our way of life must drastically change in order to “save the planet” in a manner that they find acceptable?<br /><br />November is coming.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-46298816759582615132012-03-14T08:10:00.004-07:002012-03-14T08:20:51.032-07:00America's NeroWhen I was in grade school, we were taught what to do if the U.S. came under nuclear attack. When the alarm was sounded, we were to get underneath our desks and look away from the windows. We even practiced this!<br /><br />Back then, bomb shelters were designated, usually in the basement of a large building, where people were to go if atomic bombs started falling.<br /><br />Atomic bombs are based upon the science of nuclear fission in which an atom is split into two smaller atoms, releasing large amounts of heat and radiation in the process. An atomic bomb generates heat measured in the hundreds of million of degrees and 500 miles per hour winds from the shock wave. At ground zero, everything is incinerated.<br /><br />The first use of an atomic bomb occurred on Aug. 6, 1945 when the U.S. Army Air Corp. dropped “little boy” (the bomb's nickname because of its shape) on Hiroshima, Japan, which was considered to be a legitimate military target. <br /><br />The resulting blast from “little boy” over Hiroshima was the equivalent of 13 thousand tons (kilotons) of TNT. It is estimated that 80,000 people were killed instantly and that 76% of the city’s buildings were completely destroyed or severely damaged. By the end of that year, total casualties were in the range of 90,000 to 140,000 (due to subsequent deaths from burns and radiation). This was from one primitive atomic bomb using now-obsolete technology.<br /><br />Today, hydrogen bombs have a destructive force equivalent to million of tons of TNT (compared to “little boy’s” 13 kilotons). That means that a modern nuclear bomb would be the equivalent of dropping 1000 Hiroshima "little boys" all at once.<br /><br />Iran is working hard on developing the capability of building a nuclear bomb. To cite only a couple of the more recent points of evidence, during the quarterly board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, the Director General restated his concern that Iran might be testing weapons at a military site south of Tehran, and another secret Iranian nuclear site was discovered near Qom. There is no serious disagreement among the experts on what Iran is up to; the only difference of opinion is with regard to how close Iran is to achieving it’s goal of nuclear weapon capability and whether Iran will actually build a nuclear bomb once it has the capability, or be content with just the ability of doing so. Opinions on the time frame for this range from a few months to a few years.<br /><br />Iran is a rogue state. In 1979, Iran took hostage 52 Americans working at the U.S. Embassy and Consulate in Tehran and held them for 444 days. Over the years, the Iranians have attacked oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, provided weapons to terrorist groups (Hamas and Hezbollah), brutally attacked it’s own citizens when they took to the street to protest the Iranian’s government’s stealing of the election in 2009. Iran’s leaders have vowed to wipe Israel off of the map, and denied that the Holocaust ever happened. Not too long ago, Iran allowed the British embassy in Tehran to be overrun last November by street thugs, no doubt ginned up by the Iranian government, when Britain said some things that Iran didn’t like. Iran is, according to the State Department, the world’s greatest exporter of terror. Iran is systematically killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan through Iran’s proxies. And so on.<br /><br />The Obama administration’s obsession with a “diplomatic solution” to the Iran nuclear bomb program has been an abject failure, yet he dogmatically continues with it, recently agreeing to more open-ended negotiations with no pre-conditions. Yes, Obama is still negotiating, despite Iran’s history of blatant stalling and unseriousness in all previous negotiations. <br /><br />“Negotiations”: That means talking to them. Does Obama really think that at this point we can talk Iran out of building a nuclear bomb? More such negotiations will do nothing except give Iran valuable time to move past a point-of-no-return in its quest for nukes.<br /><br />How about sanctions? That’s more than talking, so sanctions will work, some, including Obama, say. But Obama’s own director of national intelligence told the Senate intelligence committee that sanctions have had no effect whatsoever on the course of Iran’s nuclear program. None. Sanctions have hurt Iran’s economy, but have not deterred Iran’s nuclear program in the least, according to Obama’s own expert.<br /><br />Israel, meanwhile, has more to worry about than esoteric debates about the capability of producing a nuclear bomb verses actually building one. Israel faces an existential threat from a nuclear Iran. Would any sane leader in Israel trust that Obama could talk Iran out of building a nuclear bomb once Iran actually has the capability? <br /><br />How hard is it to connect the dots: Rogue state; wants to wipe Israel of the map; developing nuclear weapons. Unless someone intervenes to stop it, Iran will no-doubt nuke Israel as soon as it is able. If that happens, does anyone think the U.S. will be able to stay out of it?<br /><br />Nevertheless, more talking and more sanctions, both of which have already failed repeatedly, are Obama’s current plan for dealing with Iran’s unabated nuclear ambitions. <br /><br />I think I hear a fiddle.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-77801711778289397992012-02-24T14:08:00.000-08:002012-02-24T14:09:38.065-08:00Abbott and Costello on UnemploymentBud Abbott and Lou Costello were one of the all time great stand-up comedy teams from the 1940’s and 50’s. Their “Who’s On First, What’s On Second” routine is a timeless classic. If they were around today, the unemployment numbers coming out of Washington would no doubt give them ample material with which to work.<br /><br />Abbott: The unemployment rate is stuck above eight percent. Times are tough; a lot of people are out of work.<br />Costello: Over eight percent of the workforce is still looking for work?<br /><br />Abbott: No.<br />Costello: But you just told me the unemployment rate is over eight percent.<br /><br />Abbott: It is.<br />Costello: So how many people are out of work?<br /><br />Abbott: Sixteen percent.<br />Costello: (Looking perplexed). Sixteen percent of the workers are not working, but the unemployment rate is 8.3%?<br /><br />Abbott: Right.<br />Costello: (Looking determined). OK, so I go out and count all of the idle workers, turn that into a percent, and what number do I get?<br /><br />Abbott: 16%.<br />Costello: And that’s the unemployment rate.<br />Abbott: No, the unemployment rate is 8.3%<br /><br />Costello: (Grimace). The unemployed, they’re out of work, right?<br />Abbott: Right.<br /><br />Costello: So if you’re out of work, you’re unemployed.<br />Abbott: No.<br /><br />Costello: Someone can be out of work but not counted as unemployed? <br />Abbott: Yes.<br />Costello: There’s more than one way to be out of work?<br />Abbott: Yes. You can be out of work and out of work, or you can be out of work and unemployed.<br /><br />Costello: If I’m out of work, I’m not necessarily unemployed?<br />Abbott: Correct.<br /><br />Costello: (Agitated). How can someone be out of work but not unemployed?<br />Abbott: If you’re out of work but you quit looking for work, the government no longer considers you to be unemployed.<br /><br />Costello: Alright, if I’m out of work and I give up looking, I‘m not considered to be unemployed.<br />Abbott: (Smug look). According to the government.<br />Costello: They take me off of the unemployment role.<br />Abbott: Yes.<br /><br />Costello: So if I’m out of work and I want to get off of the unemployment role, I can either get a job or stop looking.<br />Abbott: That’s what the government says.<br /><br />Costello: (Looking brilliant). Here’s how we solve the unemployment problem: Everyone who’s out of work stops looking, and the unemployment rate goes to zero!<br />Abbott: You should work for the government.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-50326858195677158042012-02-07T17:59:00.000-08:002012-02-07T18:04:33.079-08:00What Obama Didn't SayPresident Obama’s recent State of the Union address was more notable for what he didn’t say than for what he did say.<br /><br />The most glaring and telling example was Obamacare. At the time it was being debated and passed, Obama told us that his health care bill was vitally important to the nation; that if it wasn’t passed, the health care system in this country would collapse and people would die en masse in the streets; that his bill would save trillions of dollars in health care costs; that the quality of care would rise; that millions of uninsured people would have coverage; that finally we would have affordable, high quality health care for all. The bill was debated for months. It finally passed late at night on Christmas Eve after the Democrats in Congress considered resorting to such chicanery as “deeming” the bill to be passed without actually voting on it. And it finally did pass. The Democrats erupted in jubilation. At the signing ceremony, VP Joe Biden (Democrat) made his famous remark: “This is a big f****** deal”. It was Obama’s signature accomplishment.<br /><br />After all of this and with the provisions of Obamacare now starting to take effect, Obamacare was barely mentioned in passing in the State of the Union address. I guess it wasn’t such a big deal after all, since it was all but ignored by the President himself in his major speech on where we stand as a nation.<br /> <br />And what about the stimulus? You remember that one, don’t you? At the time, we were again told that instant action was essential in the form of this $800 billion stimulus in order to save the economy as we knew it. It had to be passed immediately, that day, in order to avert financial calamity. It too was passed, and the economy was presumably saved, by Obama. Not mentioned in the State of the Union address.<br /><br />Unemployment at 8.5%? The underemployment rate estimated to be at 16%? One in five men of prime working age and nearly half of all persons under 30 not working? The unemployment rate of African-Americans at 15.8%? Teen unemployment at 23.1%? A total of 13.1 million unemployed Americans? None of this was mentioned by Obama.<br /><br />The national debt ballooning to $15 trillion during his administration and being projected to go even higher? Not mentioned by Obama.<br /><br />The Keystone Pipeline which would have created tens of thousands of high-paying jobs and reduced our dependence on Mid-East oil and which Obama blocked? Not mentioned in his speech<br />.<br />The failure of the United States Senate, controlled by Obama’s own party, to pass a budget, as required by law, for 1000 days now? Not mentioned by Obama. <br /><br />The financial chaos in Europe with rioting in the streets in Greece and a potential collapse of the Euro? Not mentioned by Obama.<br /><br />The complete failure of Obama’s “outreach” to Iran to get them to stop their nuclear bomb program, and what Obama has learned from this in dealing with Iran going forward? Not discussed in his speech.<br /><br />The violence that has erupted in Iraq after the departure of U.S. soldiers? Not mentioned.<br /><br />Specifics about how Obama’s continued draconian budget cuts to the military in this time of worldwide unrest are going to result in a stronger military, as he claims? Not presented in his speech.<br /><br />2011 GDP growth (a measure of economic expansion and the overall health of the economy) at a mere 1.7%, a little more than half of the 2010 number? Not mentioned.<br /><br />Social Security on a path to only be able to pay only 77% of promised benefits by 2036 and even less thereafter? Not mentioned.<br /><br />It’s almost as though Obama just arrived from Pluto and had no involvement with or knowledge of any of this.<br /><br />The President did say that the state of the Union is getting stronger. Really? God help us of he ever tells us it’s getting weaker.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-45786382104359252642012-02-07T17:42:00.001-08:002012-02-07T17:54:07.710-08:00The Tyranny Of The LeftThe Susan G. Komen Foundation recently announced that it was going to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood, and the events that transpired thereafter are highly instructive.<br /> <br />Now, in order to understand this episode, you need some background information.<br /> <br />First, it is very significant to keep in mind that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country.<br /> <br />The Susan G. Komen Foundation is a charity whose mission is to find a cure for breast cancer. It collects donations and then gives money to various organizations that are somehow involved with fighting breast cancer. They have been giving hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to Planned Parenthood to be used for breast cancer screening. And they decided to stop.<br /><br />Left-wing liberals started squealing like a stuck pig. Abortion, and therefore Planned Parenthood, are sacrosanct to the left, so they sprang into action. Public condemnations of Komen poured forth from the left. Phone calls were made to Komen threatening to cut off their donations. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City announced that he was personally giving $250,000 to Planned Parenthood as a show of support. Within twenty-four hours, Komen caved and retracted their announcement of ceasing donations to Planned Parenthood.<br /><br />What are the lessons learned from all of this? One thing we have clearly seen is that the Komen Foundation is run by wimps. Rather than stand by their decision, which no doubt they must have considered carefully, they immediately caved in.<br /><br />More importantly, we see the tyranny of the left on full display. We see that they absolutely refuse to allow anyone to have a different opinion than they do on anything, but especially on abortion. Where was all of the tolerance and inclusiveness of liberals with regard to the Komen Foundation? <br /><br />What we saw here was actually a lot worse than intolerance from the liberals. Keep in mind that Komen is a private charity; it’s not any sort of a government institution. Thus, in this episode we see the liberals excoriating a private charity over a decision by that charity on what to do with its own money. The liberals are not only totally unwilling to grant this private charity the right to use its money as it sees fit, the liberals actually demand that Komen give its money to the liberals’ favored institutions! Failure to comply with the liberals’ demands on how a charity is to use its own money results in a public campaign to demonize that charity. Remember, the institution that the liberals viciously attacked in this whole sorry affair is a private charity whose mission is to find a cure for breast cancer!<br /><br />Exhibit B of the intolerance of the left is the recent decision by the Obama administration to force Catholic institutions, under Obamacare, to provide contraception services in their employees’ health care plan, even though the Catholic Church is morally opposed to contraception as part of its religious views and teachings. But the Obama administration said no matter, you have to do it anyway.<br /><br />Again, in order to fully understand what is going on here, we need to review some background material.<br /><br />Liberals talk a lot about the separation of church and state, going to such extremes as saying that having a prayer before a high school football game violates this separation.<br /><br />So let’s dissect this decision by the Obama administration in light of the principle of separation of church and state.<br /><br />We have religious freedom in this country thanks to the concept of the “separation of church and state”. This is a principle written into our nation’s constitution, but those words are not there. The Founding Fathers wanted to set up a form of government under which there would be no official government mandated national religion, but rather a government where people would be free to practice their religion s they so desired. This principle of religious freedom became known as the separation of church and state, meaning that churches and the government are completely independent of each other and neither is allowed to control the other.<br /><br />Thus, churches in this country pay no taxes. That’s because if they did, they would be under the control of the government. The government could just tax churches out of existence, for example, or use the tax laws as a way of controlling churches in one way or another. So, as part of our principle of the separation of church and state, churches pay no taxes. That’s how important it was to the founding fathers to ensure that the government would not be able to find a way of controlling churches; they are totally exempt from taxation. Even sales tax. If you go to a store and buy something for your church, that store must provide a mechanism whereby no sales tax is paid on that transaction.<br /> <br />Enter the Obama Administration. It has decided to dictate to church institutions (such as colleges) the specific provisions of the health care benefits they are to provide to their employees, even if those provisions violate a church’s religious beliefs. Did you get that? Obama’s government is demanding that church institutions provide government specified health care to employees. If that isn’t the government controlling the churches, nothing is. <br /><br />So “separation of church and state” has come to mean that the government can’t control churches by taxing them, but the government can control church institutions by dictating to them what kind of healthcare benefits they must provide to employees.<br /><br />Why aren’t the liberals up in arms over this egregious violation of the separation of church and state, as they were over something as innocuous as a prayer at a high school football game?<br /> <br />The answer is, again, the intolerance of liberals, which trumps everything. Liberals are extremely intolerant of people being allowed to openly practice their religious beliefs, and “separation of church and state” is a very useful way of shutting that down. But when this same “separation of church and state” gets in the way of liberals imposing their views concerning abortion on everyone else, “separation of church and state” is suddenly gone and of no concern to liberals. Imposing their views on society is what really matters.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-79296029140297017982012-01-21T15:09:00.000-08:002012-01-21T15:17:04.146-08:00What The Tea Party Needs To LearnThe tea party movement has been one of the most encouraging developments in the political arena for a long time. When I went to my first tea party rally back in 2009, I was struck by a couple of things. One was the number of people present who made comments such as, “I’ve never done anything like this before, but I just felt I had to speak out.” Another notable point was that no elected officials or candidates were invited; it was strictly an event for non-politicians. I was impressed by how peaceful, calm, and sincere it all was. After the speeches from the organizers, we threw bags of tea into the nearby creek (with a string attached so we could pull them back out and not be litterers). <br /><br />Yes, the tea party types can have a “million man” march on the Mall in Washington with no violence whatsoever, or even any rude behavior to speak of, and then leave the place cleaner than when they arrived. The “Occupiers” can’t even comprehend something like that.<br /><br />And the tea party has had an impact. Their voice has been heard; they have changed the debate in Washington; some of their candidates have been elected. <br /><br />One of my favorite “tea party” candidates is Nikki Haley, Governor of South Carolina. I don’t know if she was so much a tea party candidate as a grassroots candidate, but it doesn’t matter. I heard her speak at an event in D.C. not too long ago, and her story is remarkable. When she first ran for a seat in the South Carolina legislature, she defeated a thirty year incumbent in the primary election (for which the local part bosses have never forgiven her) in a true grassroots campaign with no money, no name recognition, but a lot of passion and energy. She went on to win in the general election by the same means. She was then ostracized by the career politicians in the legislature to the point of them not even giving her an office; she had to work in the hallways. The governor also was making life difficult for her, so she decided to run for governor! And she won that one, too. One of her first actions as governor was to put in place a “report card” program where she as governor rated the performance of every member of the legislature, and published the ratings. Don’t you just love it!<br /><br />In spite of these and other successes, I see the tea party movement now starting to become less effective. This is 2011, not 2009; things have changed. The people still want a new direction for the country, but they aren’t as prone to simply continue going to rallies. A new approach is needed. Anti-establishment fervor is no longer enough. The movement is maturing.<br /><br />Staging rallies only gets you so far. In order to really have an impact on actual government policies, you have to be able get people elected in this new, more mature, “tea party” era. The tea party needs to move from being reactive with protests and rallies on various issues to being pro-active by getting the right people nominated and elected in the first place so we don’t have to continually pressure them into doing the right thing.<br /><br />Here’s the problem with accomplishing that. There are only two ways to get someone elected, beyond local elections: 1) Via the Democrat Party, or 2) Via the Republican Party.<br /><br />Don’t talk to me about a third party. Yes, there are one or two Independents in Congress, but that is the clear exception. No third party candidate has ever been elected President.<br /><br />Look at some fairly recent history. In the Presidential elections of 1992 and 1996, there was a third party candidate, Ross Perot. People were so fed up with George Bush the elder (of “Read my lips. No new taxes” fame – he raised taxes after saying that) that many people, mostly Republicans, bolted to Perot. In 1992, Perot received 19% of the vote, more than any third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party in 1912. But it was still just 19%; Perot wasn’t elected, of course. What he did was throw the election to the Democrat, Bill Clinton, who received only 43% of the vote. That was more than Bush’s 38%, so Clinton was elected. Something similar happened in 1996 when Bob Dole was the Republican candidate, although not as dramatically. The effect of third party candidate Ross Perot was to throw the election to Clinton twice.<br /><br />Today, some people think Ron Paul may run as a third party candidate if he doesn’t get the Republican nomination. If so, the result will be the same- the election will be thrown to the Democrat (Obama).<br /><br />No, if you want to get elected President, or to Congress other than as some sort of an anomaly, you’re going to have to do it through one of the two national political parties.<br /><br />That’s what the tea party doesn’t seem to realize. You have to have a national political organization behind you; rallies and protests won’t do it. Rallies and protests can be effective in influencing the vote of some elected officials on certain issues, but those activities won’t get you elected.<br /><br />The tea party needs to bring its energy, viewpoints, and conviction into the Republican Party to influence the party establishment and move them in the right direction. The tea party needs to work within the party to get good conservative candidates nominated, and then use the party resources and organization to get those candidates elected. <br /><br />Jamie Radtke, a prominent tea party activist, is running for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination in Virginia. She went on a bus tour throughout Southwest Virginia not too long ago. In setting up this bus tour, she or her campaign did not contact any Republican County Committee Chair or the Republican Ninth District chairman. She just completely ignored them. How does she think she will get the Republican Party behind her by snubbing the party activists? Even if she get’s the nomination, she can’t win in the general election without the part’s full support.<br /><br />I understand the problem with career politicians and the complacent party establishment that wants mainly wants to go along to get along. But the way to deal with all of that is to build a fire under the establishment and/or overwhelm it, not alienate it.<br /><br />The tea party also needs to understand that it matters who the nominee is. They need to put forth candidates who are astute politicians and who can appeal to non-tea party voters.<br /><br />This was the problem with Sharon Angle in Nevada and Delaware Girl Christine O’Donnell. The tea party got them the Republican nominations for U.S. Senate, but then couldn’t get them elected because they were, well, poor candidates. Remember the infamous “I am not a witch” news conference of Delaware Girl?<br /><br />All in all, if the tea party doesn’t get a little savvier and do a better job of using the resources of the established political parties, I fear it will lose momentum.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-62712911815668673832012-01-04T14:41:00.000-08:002012-01-04T14:44:06.849-08:00Another Un-won WarThe last American troops have left Iraq. In his comments regarding this event, President Obama did not use any of these words: victory, mission accomplished, win, won, triumph, success, complete, or any other such words. Quite the contrary: A few months ago, Obama said he was uncomfortable with the notion of “victory” in Iraq. So our soldiers just left one day, and we now have another un-won war.<br /><br />This is a real problem. There are consequences to un-won wars, just as there are consequences when we win.<br /><br />Let’s look at real examples from United States history that show the consequences of wars that were won and those that were not.<br /><br />The last war that America won decisively was World War II (WWII). Both Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally. <br /><br />For Japan, this happened only after the Japanese Navy was completely destroyed and the American’s were totally defeating the Japanese on Pacific island after island in ferocious, all-out, scorched earth, bloody fighting on their way to an assault on the Japanese mainland (which it was estimated would have resulted in hundreds of thousand of casualties on both side). The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki eliminated the need for that mainland invasion, but only after the Japanese emperor stepped in and overruled the Japanese military, which wanted to fight on. <br /><br />In Europe, it was a ground and air war. We all know about D-Day, the longest day, which Eisenhower agonizingly delayed for three days due to weather, and then gave the go-ahead even though the weather was still marginal at best because he couldn’t keep all of those masses of ships and troops waiting offshore any longer. It was the largest amphibious assault in history. After the success of D-Day, it was on to Berlin. On the way, there was the Battle of the Bulge, the last major land battle in Europe, which came close to being a disaster for the Allies, but we held on. The German Air Force (the much vaunted Luftwaffe) had been eliminated, and we were relentlessly pounding military and industrial sites from the air with impunity. The Red Army was closing in from the East. Finally, Hitler realized it was over and committed suicide (with his mistress, Eva Braun). After the war, Germany was a pile of rubble.<br /><br />It was total victory for the U.S. and it’s allies, and total defeat for Germany and Japan. What have been the long-term consequences of this war that we won decisively? Today, Germany is Europe’s strongest economy, Japan is a major world economy, they have high standards of living, their people are well off, they are modern not third world countries, and both are our good friends. On a personal note, I worked for a company that did forty percent of its business in Japan, and I traveled there many times. <br /><br />Let’s look at another example of the consequences of a war that was decisively won, the Civil War. I am a Civil War history buff; I must have read two dozen books about the Civil War, the events that lead up to it, and its aftermath. The devastation of this war is incomprehensible to people today. Generals routinely lost a quarter or a third of their army, and lived to fight another day. Lincoln knew that he couldn’t just win battles, but that he had to destroy the rebel army in totality. Lee knew that his only chance for victory was to score some big win on northern territory early on that would be psychologically devastating, hence Antietam and Gettysburg. Toward the end, General Sheridan saw the Shenandoah Valley as the breadbasket of the Confederacy by which the Confederate Army was fed. He laid waste to it, saying that he wanted a crow flying from end to end to find not one kernel of grain, and he pretty much succeeded. The only reason Lee and Jackson didn’t do similar things was because they never got the chance.<br /><br />In the end, the number of casualties was appalling: over six hundred thousand killed and over one million killed, wounded, or missing in action, at a time when the total population of the country was thirty-one million. It took a hundred years for the economy in the southern states to fully recover.<br /><br />The Union won decisively, and what have the long-term consequences been? The United States of America that we see today.<br /><br />Now what about the consequences of wars that we got into but didn’t win?<br /><br />We’ll start with Korea. We did not win that war, by any account. It was a negotiated truce. North Korea was left intact, and it has been a nightmare for the North Koreans and the world ever since. The North Korean people live under an extremely oppressive regime and are virtually starving to death while the country’s ruling dictator and his select few live in immense luxury. Consider one little factoid: The recently deceased Kim the elder apparently liked good brandy, and reportedly spent $850,00 on it in one year, while his people starved. And then there is that matter of the nuclear weapons that North Korea may have. What will happen if this unstable, rogue country ever gets them for sure and the means to deliver them? This is all the result of a war that America got into but didn’t win.<br /><br />How about Vietnam? Fifty-seven thousand Americans died in that war plus many thousands more that were wounded or missing in action. We didn’t win that one either; as with Iraq, we just left one day. The consequences: The North Vietnam communist regime took aver South Vietnam, the very thing we were fighting to prevent. Our soldiers died in vain.<br /><br />Consider Iran. In 1979, Iran disregarded all international norms and occupied the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking a number of the embassy’s staff, U.S. citizens, prisoner. This was an act of war, because centuries-old international law grants diplomats immunity from arrest and regards an embassy to be that country’s sovereign territory. Respect for those principles is considered by all countries to be the most basic tenet of international relations. If an embassy is taken over or otherwise violated, it is equivalent to a similar act on that country’s homeland. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage by Iran after the embassy take-over for 444 days (a few others were released earlier). In the face of this clear act of war, President Carter dithered. After several months, he authorized a military rescue mission that failed miserably. The hostages were held for several more months before finally being released after Reagan was elected President.<br /><br />The consequence of our failure to recognize Iran’s actions for what they were, an act of war, and to deal with Iran accordingly is that we are still to this day being threatened by Iran’s dangerous behavior. We know the Iranians were supporting terrorists in Iraq, leading to the deaths of American soldiers. Iran has said it wants to wipe one of our strategic allies, Israel, off the map. Iran is trying to go nuclear. Recently, Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which passes a large portion of the worlds oil.<br /><br />And how about those soldiers that left Iraq recently? The only reason they were there in the first place is because we didn’t win the first Gulf War with Iraq in 1991. In that one, we pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait (which they had invaded), declared victory, and left the Saddam Hussein regime in power in Iraq. The rest is history.<br /><br />There is an unmistakable lesson to be learned from these wars that were won or not. Since the United States is a major world power, there are significant consequences to the outcome of any armed conflict that we undertake. Winning brings good things; losing or just giving up brings more problems that only get worse as the years go by.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-65629281747089961492011-12-23T10:01:00.000-08:002012-01-21T15:21:09.183-08:00Christmas 1776As we are enjoying our Christmas festivities this year, let us remember another Christmas day over two hundred years ago that may well have altered the course of American history.<br /><br />1776 had been a very discouraging year militarily for the Americans. The Continental Army had suffered several defeats in New York and had retreated to Pennsylvania. Morale was low; soldiers were deserting. Soldiers lacked adequate clothes and sometimes even shoes. Public spirits were very low.<br /><br />General Washington knew that he needed some sort of a success soon in order to keep the whole revolutionary effort from collapsing. He devised a plan to attack the enemy garrison at Trenton, New Jersey, which consisted of about 2000 Hessian soldiers. There is speculation that this particular target and time were selected because Hessians are German; they were mercenaries (hired soldiers). Christmas is a big deal in Germany, and it was felt that the Hessians would no doubt have a lavish dinner on the evening of Christmas Day with much beer and dancing. Early the next morning would be a good time to challenge them. <br /><br />On Christmas Eve, Washington called together his Lieutenants and outlined the plan. The army was to attack across the Delaware River in three places. One force, a smaller one, would cross downriver of Trenton and advance north. A second, even smaller force would attack directly across the river at Trenton and hold a strategic bridge over a creek that could be used by the enemy as a retreat route.<br /><br />Washington would lead the largest force, 2400 men, which would cross the river nine miles upstream and then head south to Trenton.<br /><br />Everything depended upon the crossing of the river by these three forces. This was to occur on Christmas night and be finished by midnight. They would arrive at Trenton at five o’clock the next morning and the attack would occur at 6:00 a.m., an hour before daybreak.<br /><br />On Christmas Day, the weather started deteriorating. The river was high and contained much ice. As the day progressed, the weather got worse. It turned into a full-fledged storm. It rained, hailed, snowed, and froze.<br /><br />The river crossing was extremely treacherous, at night in a storm. Horses and artillery as well as soldiers had to be loaded onto the boats and taken across. The two smaller forces, unbeknownst to Washington, could not cross at all due to the ice. Washington’s force got across by 3:00 a.m., three hours late. A Sergeant informed General Washington that the soldiers’ powder was wet and they could not fire their muskets. Washington replied that they were to use their bayonets.<br /><br />The attack began just after eight o’clock in the morning on Dec.26. It all happened very fast, in snow. After forty-five minutes, it was over. Twenty-one Hessians were killed (including their commander), ninety wounded, and nine hundred taken prisoner. About five hundred escaped over the very bridge that was supposed to have been blocked by one of the smaller Continental Army forces but wasn’t because that force couldn’t get across the river. Incredibly enough, no Americans were killed in the battle and only four were wounded, although two froze to death the night before in the march.<br /><br />Although the strategic fruits of the battle were minimal, the psychological effects were phenomenal.The Americans had beaten a force of the British regulars. Prisoners had been taken; the Americans had captured canons and other materiel. The course of the war had been changed.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-77331596201585510332011-12-18T13:12:00.000-08:002011-12-18T13:15:49.273-08:00A Commission Designed To FailThe budget deficit and debt debate has been so debilitating to Congress that they gave up on trying to reach an agreement and instead appointed the so-called “super committee” to do it. This committee, consisting of six Democrats and six Republicans, was chartered to formulate a plan for reducing the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. The committee would report back to Congress with its plan, and Congress would vote on it. If no plan was presented or if Congress voted it down, automatic spending cuts equal to the $1.2 trillion would kick in.<br /><br />In government, when you want to make sure nothing happens, you appoint a committee.<br /><br />There are 535 members of Congress (100 U.S. Senators and 435 Representatives). They argued about the debt and deficit for months, and couldn’t agree. What reason was there to think that this super-committee of twelve would be able to work magic and come up with a plan when Congress had been so utterly unable to do so for so long? And even if the committee did somehow develop a debt plan, what reason was there to think Congress would approve it after Congress had been deadlocked for so long?<br /><br />The answer is that this committee was designed to fail. The people appointed to it were the most ideological from both sides. There was no chance they were going to come together after all of the political wrangling and suddenly have a love fest. It was just a way of letting Congress kick the can down the road a little longer and avoid having to make tough choices.<br /><br />So the committee has failed, as planned, and the automatic spending cuts will be enacted.<br /><br />In a paragon of political double-speak, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) said, “It wasn’t so much a failure as a failure to seize an opportunity.” If you want to know what’s wrong in Washington, just mull that statement over for awhile. Here we have a committee that was given the expressed mandate to formulate a plan to reduce the budget deficit by $1.2 trillion, yet when the committee functionally collapses with no plan, it’s not a failure, it’s a missed opportunity.<br /><br />Mr. Hensarling, instead of lamenting this missed opportunity, why don’t you take the lead in getting Congress to fix the problem? Congress has unlimited opportunities to fix the deficit. Congress could have done it instead of appointing a committee. Congress could go into session tomorrow, or the next day, or next week, or next month, and do what needs to be done.<br /><br />Well, now because this committee has failed, oops, I mean missed an opportunity, we’ll be afflicted with those “draconian” (if I hear that word one more time, I’m going to throw up) automatic across-the-board budget cuts.<br /><br />No.<br /><br />Congress, demonstrating yet again that it isn’t serious about any of this, put in place the provision that the cuts won’t happen until 2013, over a year from now.<br /><br />Once again, we see that the committee was a farce. It didn’t have those “draconian” (excuse me for a moment – OK, I‘m back now) cuts hanging over it ready to immediately fall like a guillotine if the committee failed to reach agreement. The cuts won’t happen until over a year from now!<br /><br />Hmmm - 2013. There’s something about that date. 2013, 2013 – what is it? Oh, yes, we have an election in November 2012. They put the cuts off until after the next election!<br /><br />So what do you think will happen in the first Session of Congress in 2013? They’ll undo the cuts, of course. The cuts will never happen, and that was the way it was planned.<br /><br />You can’t make this stuff up.<br /><br />$1.2 trillion sounds like a lot of money, but in the world of Washington, it isn’t. <br /><br />The total federal deficit recently reached $15 trillion. So even if the deficit were reduced by $1.2 trillion, it would be a rather modest 8% reduction. And that’s over ten years, so it comes out to only 0.8% per year. Yes, all of this caterwauling in D.C. is because they can’t find a way to reduce the budget deficit by somewhat less than 1% a year.<br /><br />Or look at it this way. The total federal budget for 2011 is $3.8 trillion. The $1.2 trillion of cuts over ten years represents a cut of $0.12 trillion per year, or a little more than 3% per year.<br /><br />In a time of financial distress, Congress can’t manage to reduce the federal budget by 3% a year or reduce the deficit by 0.8% a year. How much do we pay these people?<br /><br />It gets better. Another factoid that no one is talking about right now is that even if the $1.2 trillion of cuts do happen, nothing is actually going to be cut. That’s right, even under that “draconian” (there I go again) scenario, nothing will be cut, because in Washington, an increase is a cut. The “cuts” that are the target of all of these political machinations represent a reduction in the budget increase. That’s the notorious base-line budgeting process whereby every year the federal budget automatically increases across the board by some percentage, and then any reductions to those increases are demagogued as “draconian” (I can’t help it) cuts. But the spending goes up in absolute terms everywhere. So an increase is a cut in Washington; even if those $1.2 trillion in “cuts” happen, spending will still go up. Nothing will be cut!<br /><br />Here’s what’s really going on. There is a fundamental ideological war going on in this country. There are two competing visions for the future of America. Liberals want to continue on the path to a European-style socialist democracy with lots more government spending, much higher taxes and more government borrowing, a much smaller military, complete government-run healthcare, more government spending on “green” energy, more entitlements (the latest proposal being government-paid-for baby diapers), more government jobs programs, more environmental regulations, and so on. Conservatives what to roll back the welfare state, cut government spending, reduce taxes, reduce regulations that inhibit the economy, keep a strong national defense, promote traditional American values and patriotism, foster individual responsibility and self-reliance, let the private economy create jobs, and not have the government do anything for people that the people could and should do for themselves.<br /><br />This battle for the future of the country vis-à-vis big government vs. small government has been going on for decades, but it has intensified during the last three years. Since then, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been fighting vigorously over everything, but especially over the issues of government spending, entitlements, the federal budget, and the deficit, as we have all witnessed.<br /> <br />The resolution to this fundamental conflict will not come until November 2012. Until then, expect more of the same.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-15269266176733469592011-12-11T09:36:00.000-08:002011-12-11T09:38:29.572-08:00Obama's OccupiersOn October 18, speaking of the Occupiers, President Obama said on ABC news, “We are on their side.” And the President told Occupy demonstrators in New Hampshire, “You are the reason I ran for office.”<br /><br />Here are some recent news headlines and quotes concerning the Occupiers:<br />“Wall Street Protesters Evicted From Camp”<br />“Police roust protesters from New York square”<br />“It took 150 Sanitation Department workers hours to clear the mess, finding everything from hypodermic needles to buckets of human waste”<br />“L.A. Police Disperse Protesters’ Camp”<br />“Death brings more pressure to close camps”<br />“Occupy Atlanta organizers said Sunday that they plan to again try to camp at a city park, setting up yet another overnight showdown with police a night after 19 people were arrested -----.”<br />“Anti-Wall Street protesters dig in against police”<br />“Occupy Wall Street Gets More Violent”<br />“Kitchen Volunteer’s Sex Arrest Shocks Zucotti Park”<br />“Police clear protesters near Oakland’s City Hall” “They cited concerns about rats, fire hazards, public urination, and acts of violence at the site.”<br />“A woman involved in the Occupy Philadelphia protests was raped in a tent by another protester”<br />”Salt lake City police Chief Chris Burbank said officers have made 91 arrests at the camp -----.”<br />“These incidents follow violence last month in Oakland, California, in which protestors shut down a busy port, took over abandoned buildings, set fires, burned American flags, defaced private property, and destroyed ATM’s.”<br /><br />These are apparently Obama’s kind of people.<br /><br />Who, besides Obama, sympathizes with the Occupiers? The Socialist Party USA, the Democrat Socialists of America, the Communist Party, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, House Democrat Minority Leader Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and one of the main committees of the Democrat Party (the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee) have all either endorsed the Occupiers outright or expressed support for them.<br /><br />I have some questions for you. How many tea party rallies did the police clear out? How many tea partiers were arrested? How many people were raped, shot, or assaulted at a tea party really? How many tea partiers shouted insults at police, or at anybody? How many American flags were burned at a tea party rally? How many buckets of human waste did the tea partiers leave behind? Did you ever hear tea partiers saying such things as “take back”, “reinforcements”, “tactics”, “demands”, and other such aggressive talk as has come from the Occupiers? No, tea partiers would have a remarkably well behaved rally and then go home (leaving the area cleaner than when they arrived). They might also call or write a letter to their Congressman.<br /><br />What do the Occupiers want, other than sex, drugs, and a rent-free place to live? It’s hard to tell, since when some of them were asked, they gave incoherent answers. When they have been able to speak clearly about their issues, they have said that they want an end to all home foreclosures and millions of new living-wage jobs.<br /><br />Lets look at the demand for an end to all foreclosures, and do a little thought experiment. Suppose that actually happened. What would immediately occur next, as a result? Everybody would stop paying their mortgage, of course, which would lead to a new economic catastrophe that would make the one we just came through look puny by comparison. So, ending all home foreclosures is a nonsensical idea.<br /><br />What about the Occupiers’ demand for millions of new, living-wage jobs? This is a laudable goal, but where could those millions of new jobs possibly come from? In order for these new jobs to be sustainable, on-going jobs rather than just temporary make-work jobs, they could only come from a re-invigorated private sector, the very thing that the Occupiers decry! More silliness.<br /><br />These Occupiers fall into the category of “useful idiots”. They are useful to the Democrats now because they direct the public’s attention away from Obama’s terrible record as President. And since the Occupiers have become experienced in street violence and anarchy, they could also be very useful to Obama and the Democrats after the next Presidential election in the event Obama looses.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-90456700738653702582011-11-16T14:51:00.000-08:002011-11-16T14:55:14.849-08:00Democrats Are Killing JobsWhen President Obama proposed “son of stimulus”, any remaining doubt about his intentions was removed. He doesn’t care about jobs; his overriding concern is to massively increase government spending and raise taxes to pay for it. One member of Obama’s staff famously said a crisis should never go to waste. That’s what this is all about - Obama using the economic situation as an opportunity to further his agenda. He doesn’t want to solve the problem; he wants to exploit it. He and his enablers are statists who want most of all to increase government control of every aspect of our lives. To them, only the elite ruling class is competent enough to know what’s good for the masses. <br /><br />If Obama wants jobs, why does he prevent more off-shore drilling and the thousands of high paying jobs that would go with it? Why does he want to bankrupt the coal industry (as he was caught on tape saying)? Why has he delayed the Keystone pipeline project that would create more thousands of jobs? Why is he letting the EPA put forth even stricter standards that will cause AEP to have to close six power plants (including Glen Lyn). Why is he pushing cap-and-trade that will send thousands of jobs overseas? Why is his administration going after Gibson Guitar? Why did he let his NLRB sue Boeing to keep them from building a new factory in South Carolina? Why is he continually talking about higher taxes? Why is Obama doing so much to kill jobs if he wants jobs?<br /><br />The facts show that the first stimulus was an abject failure. Unemployment is stuck at 9%, and the real unemployment rate that covers the underemployed and those who have given up is estimated to be at 16%. The economy is still on life support and the housing market is not recovering at all. These are the results that Obama and crew have achieved with all of their massive government spending.<br /><br />What is their response to the failure of the first stimulus and all the other government spending? Spend more!<br /><br />The government has no money of its own. It only has money that it takes from us as taxes, or it can borrow. <br /><br />How can the government stimulate the economy by taking money from one citizen (as taxes) and giving it to another citizen? There is no net gain in that.<br /><br />Or even worse, as is now happening, how can the government stimulate the economy by spending borrowed money. The national debt is now close to $14 trillion, which will all have to be paid back with interest. This will be a burden to the federal budget and the economy for generations. You can’t continually borrow your way to prosperity.<br /><br />The Republicans tried to provide some adult supervision in the recent debt ceiling issue, but the Democrats fought it tooth and toenail. The Democrats don’t care about trillions of debt and all of the bad effects of that; they demand more of it.<br /><br />If you want to look back at the Great Depression, it is actually very instructive. President Roosevelt and all of his massive government spending and government make-work jobs did not solve the unemployment problem. What got us out of the Great Depression was World War II and the real jobs in the private sector that came from that.<br /><br />If Obama wants to create jobs, he needs to learn how to do it.<br /><br />Steve Jobs literally started Apple Computer in his garage, with his high school buddy. After some initial success with his fledgling company, Steve Jobs was fired from the company he founded by the person he himself had recruited to take over as President so that Steve could focus on the technical innovation side of things. He then founded another company, sold it to Apple, returned to Apple again as part of the deal, and the rest is history, as they say. Today, Apple Computer is wildly successful, has revolutionized the way we get and use information, employs 46,000 people, has created thousand of other jobs in suppliers, has made millionaires of hundreds of its employees through stock option grants, and has more cash on hand than the U.S. government!<br /><br />This all happened without one penny of government stimulus money. There are untold more such examples. That is how you create jobs - provide an environment where companies large and small can flourish, grow, and hire people because they need them. Obama does the exact opposite; he punishes companies and incites class warfare.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-12990674057263677472011-11-12T13:45:00.000-08:002011-11-22T08:22:01.153-08:00Liberals Feel; Conservatives ThinkDuring my decades of observing and commenting on political and social issues, I have slowly come to the conclusion that liberals apparently live in a parallel universe where reality is not defined by past history, logic, reason, hard data, common sense, and factual observations but rather by how one feels. Reality to a liberal is determined by their feelings and their dogma. This is why you can’t have a legitimate debate of the issues with liberals; what they feel must be true even though past history and hard data show the contrary.<br /><br />Let’s go on a journey through the parallel universe in which liberals live.<br /><br />Liberals’ parallel universe: The “rich” don’t pay their fair share of taxes.<br />Real universe of facts: The top 1% of income earners paid 38% of all federal incomes taxes, the top 5% paid 59%, and the top 10% paid 70%, according to IRS data from 2008, the most recent year for which data is available. On the other end of the income scale, 49% of U.S. households paid no federal income tax whatsoever.<br />Liberal response: The rich have too much money and need to pay more, no matter what IRS statistics one can come up with.<br /><br />Liberals’ parallel universe: The current federal budget deficit could be fixed if the “rich” paid only a little more in taxes.<br />Real universe of hard data: If Congress tried to pay off the deficit by raising taxes on small businesses, investors, and individuals making more than $250,000 per year, the top two tax rates would have to be raised to 132% and 142%, i.e., more than the affected people make. If Washington took all of the income of the top 1% , it would yield $938 billion, compared to a $14 trillion national debt.<br />Liberal response: Well, no matter, the rich need to pay more.<br /><br />Liberal’s parallel universe: The economy can be jump-started by government spending.<br />Real universe of historical experience: After TARP, the stimulus, bailouts of Wall Street, bailouts of Detroit, cash-for-clunkers, bailouts of the states, bailouts of teachers, huge government deficit spending, etc. the economy has not recovered, the housing market is still in the tank, and unemployment has not gone down.<br />Liberal response: The government didn’t spend enough; we need another stimulus.<br /><br />Liberals’ parallel universe: The temperature of the earth’s atmosphere is rising due to the effects of mankind’s energy usage.<br />Real universe of actual events: Leaked emails from East Anglia University, one of the major climate research institutions, show that climate research scientists who support man-made global warming fudged the numbers to get the answer they wanted, ignored evidence to the contrary, ostracized and persecuted scientists who disagreed with them, and raked in millions of dollars in research grants in the process. <br />Real world of common sense: Meteorologists can’t accurately and consistently predict the weather for next week, the Farmer’s Almanac can’t reliably tell us what the weather will be this coming year, but global warming scientists can predict the earth’s temperature fifty years from now to within a hundredth of a degree, with surety.<br />Liberal response: It doesn’t matter, because man-made global warming just must be true.<br /><br />Liberals’ parallel universe: Public schools are failing, in general, because they are underfunded.<br />Real universe of observable, factual results: The Washington, D.C. schools get more money per capita than any school system in the country, but achieve some of the worst results. Catholic schools spend much less than public schools per student and get some of the highest results.<br />Liberal response: It’s all about the children! Schools need more money!<br /><br />Liberals’ parallel universe: Unemployment benefits are good for the economy.<br />Real world of common sense: So why don’t we just all quit our jobs (or get fired) and go on unemployment? The economy would boom.<br />Liberal response: Umm, umm, well ------.<br /><br />Liberals’ parallel universe: We live in a racist society. People of color are held back.<br />Real universe of actual people: Condoleeza Rich, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Barack Obama, Alan West, Marco Rubio, Michael Steele, Herman Cain, E. W. Jackson, the NFL, the NBA, Francis Rice, Thomas Sowell, college faculties, Nikki Haley, Jesse Lee Peterson, etc.<br />Liberal response: They don’t count.<br /><br />Liberals’ parallel universe: People should wash their jeans less and do all sorts of other things in order to save water, because if we don’t, the planet will run out.<br />Real universe of science: The water cycle: Water evaporates from the oceans, goes into the atmosphere as water vapor, condenses and falls back down to Earth as rain or snow or ice, and the cycle repeats itself over and over. The water does not leave the planet. Local shortages can occur, but the planet will not run out of water, barring some cosmic event.<br />Liberal response: Huh?<br /><br />Liberals’ parallel universe: Bill Clinton is a respectable person.<br />Real world of actual people and events: Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Juanita Broderick all accused Bill Clinton of sexual abuse of the worst sort. Ms. Broderick actually accused Clinton of raping her. Clinton settled with Ms. Jones for $850,000. And then there was Monica.<br />Liberal response: Well, Clinton supports abortion and other liberal causes, so he must be a good guy. We need more people like him.<br /><br />Liberals’ parallel universe: Cigarette smoke is so dangerous that smokers must be banished to 25 feet from an office building because just a whiff of second-hand smoke or even coming into contact with third-hand smoke (yes, we’re up to third hand smoke now), such as touching the steering wheel of a car in which someone has smoked a lot, can kill you. <br />Real world of common sense: Touching the steering wheel of a smoker’s car can kill you?<br />Liberal response: You want people to die, don’t you?<br /><br />The list goes on: Barack Obama has been a good President; The “occupy” movement is a peaceful uprising of ordinary citizens; Ted Kennedy was a great human being; “Cash for clunkers” was a worthwhile program; The H1N1 scare warranted a massive government response; Eating red meat is bad for you; CO2 is a pollutant; Passing out condoms to ninth graders is a good idea; Polar bears are dying off; The sub-prime mortgage collapse was caused by greedy banks; etc. ad nauseum. All of these notions are demonstrably false in the real world of rational fact-based thought, but they and many others live on and thrive in the parallel liberal universe of “feelings”.<br /><br />The next time you try to have a discussion of some issue with a liberal, notice how quickly they resort to name calling and the questioning of your character. That’s because if they debate the issue, whatever it is, using facts, hard data, actual experience, logic, and reason, they lose every time. So they call you names instead and retreat to the safety of their parallel universe where all that matters is how they feel.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-15273510190799789552011-10-29T11:49:00.000-07:002011-10-29T11:51:44.515-07:00Yes we Cain!Herman Cain is running for the Republican nomination to be their candidate for President in the 2012 election. To say that he’s not your usual Presidential candidate is an understatement. As far as I’m concerned, he’s a breath of fresh air in what can be the stultifying world of political candidates.<br /><br />Let’s take a quick look at his life. He has truly lived the American dream.<br /><br />Herman Cain grew up in Atlanta in the 1950’s and 60’s with, as his bio says, “loving parents and little else”. His father worked three jobs and his mother was a domestic worker. Their dream was for their two children to go to college. Herman graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a degree in mathematics, and his brother graduated from Morris Brown College. Mission accomplished.<br /><br />Herman went on to get a Master’s degree in computer science from Purdue University while working full-time for the Department of the Navy (as a civilian employee). After moving back to Atlanta, he took a job as a computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola. His mathematics and computer science degrees made Herman somewhat of a techno-geek of that time. He liked the work, but gravitated toward business management. He moved to Pillsbury and became regional vice-president of the Burger King division. Herman was assigned to a low performing region of 450 restaurants, and within three years it became the best performing segment of the company.<br /><br />With that success under his belt (no pun intended), Herman accepted the challenge to become President of Godfather’s Pizza, a company that was close to bankruptcy. Herman and his management team returned Godfather’s to profitability; then they bought the company!<br /><br />All of this led to Herman being named President of the National Restaurant Association, a trade and lobbying group for the restaurant industry. In this role, he once had the opportunity to speak to President Clinton regarding the impact to businesses of Clinton’s proposed health care overhaul. Herman challenged the President on this issue, which gained Herman some national attention. Newsweek magazine credited him with being one of the primary reasons that Hillarycare got nowhere.<br /><br />Herman’s work at the National Restaurant Association gave him the opportunity to work with business leaders across the country. This resulted in him being named to the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. He subsequently became Chairman of the Board.<br /><br />Think about this life. Here is a person who started with literally nothing except his God-given talents, a desire to get ahead, and a willingness to work hard to make it happen. And look at what he’s accomplished! Only in America; that’s what I love about this country.<br /><br />Now Herman is running for President, because he thinks the country is headed in the wrong direction. He sees a big, bloated federal government that is exerting too much control over almost everything; he sees an economy that is on life-support with no improvement in sight; he sees federal government policies that are making the economic problem worse; he sees out-of-control federal spending; he sees a President who only wants more of the same. Herman wants to get us back on track as a nation so that the American dream he experienced can continue to be available to future generations and so we will remain the land of the free.<br /><br />I had the opportunity to hear Herman speak live at an event last June. At that time, he was getting little attention, and many of the political elite were saying that this pizza guy had no chance to get the nomination. Herman came out on stage and blew the others away. No one else was close. His catch line was: I didn’t get that memo (saying I have no chance), so I’m going on. Nicely done, I thought.<br /><br />Speaking of the “pizza guy”, I really do wish Herman would let it be known that he was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City. Given that the economy is one of our major problems and there is all of this talk about monetary policy, quantitative easing, inflation/deflation, interest rates, etc., I don’t understand why Herman doesn’t play up his experience in this area more. No other candidate has this kind of monetary policy experience<br /><br />Now Herman is pushing his “9-9-9” plan to improve the economy and overhaul the federal tax code. His plan is getting a lot of attention. It’s all over the news, the internet, and even The Wall Street Journal did a piece on it. In one of the recent debates, the other candidates were attacking 9-9-9 from all angles, which was curious, I thought, since at the time the only other candidate with an economic plan was Romney. So all of the others who had no plan were attacking Cain’s plan!<br /><br />Herman’s 9-9-9 plan does, however, need to be discussed and debated. That’s as it should be. But whatever you may think of 9-9-9, Herman deserves credit for taking a bold position and for initiating a national discussion on this major issue, rather than tiptoeing through the tulips, as politicians are wont to do. <br /><br />And that brings me to another reason why I like what I see in Cain: He’s not a career politician. Herman isn’t running for President because he’s next in line, or because this is his next promotion, or because he’s good at telling people what they want to hear, or because he has been pandering to various special interest groups his whole life and they will now support him, or for his own self-aggrandizement.<br /><br />Not being a career politician has another benefit: Herman has no fear of the party bosses. They didn’t make him, and they can’t hurt him. His career isn’t at stake. He’s already made it in life. He is untouchable.<br /><br /> Herman has lived his life in the real world; a world where he solved problems instead of just talking about them. It’s a world where posturing isn’t enough; you actually have to deliver. He wants to be elected President so he can lead the way in solving our nation’s problems and ensuring that America remains that shining city on a hill, the world’s last best hope, the greatest nation on Earth.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-23812338898812295582011-10-15T15:52:00.000-07:002011-10-15T15:55:50.388-07:00Government GreedGreed – Intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food. (Oxford American Dictionary).<br /><br />President Obama and others in Washington have been vilifying “the rich” for months, saying among other things that they don’t pay their “fair share” in taxes. The greedy “rich” apparently want to keep all of that money for themselves, the selfish SOB’s.<br /><br />And now we are hearing about “corporate greed” and all of the selfish people on “Wall Street”. Why do they hoard all of that money; why don’t they hire some people or do some such generous and appropriate activity with that money; spread it around, you know? But no, they keep it all for themselves. How greedy; they need to be punished.<br /><br />I have a different view. There is a much bigger, much more powerful, much greedier villain out there: the federal government. I am organizing a new “occupy” movement. I want “we the people” to rise up and march on Washington to send a message to that huge, bloated, selfish bureaucracy and its protectorate (i.e., politicians).<br /><br />Let me tell you a story about one of the “greedy” corporations I worked for. It was, at the time, a mid-sized, growing company with great prospects. Their goal was to dominate their market by way of superior products, which would lead them to becoming a big company. But, along the way, there was a business slowdown. In order to remain at a sustainable profit level and keep going toward the future growth that would no doubt return, the company President decided that two actions would be taken: 1) There would be a six percent reduction in the workforce, and 2) All executives, of which I was one, would take a ten percent pay cut. And so it was done. It wasn’t pleasant, but that’s what well-run companies do when their income goes down and it no longer lines up with expenses. In this case, the growth did return. Today that company is the dominant player in its market, is very profitable, and provides high-paying jobs for tens of thousands of people.<br /><br />This is just one of an untold number of such stories in the corporate world.<br /><br />How about Apple Computer, whose founder, Steve Jobs, tragically died of cancer at a young age recently? Steve Jobs literally started Apple Computer in his garage, with his high school buddy. After some initial success with his fledgling company, Steve Jobs was fired from the company he founded by the person he himself had recruited to take over as President so that Steve could focus on the technical innovation side of things. He then founded another company, sold it to Apple, returned to Apple again as part of the deal, and the rest is history, as they say. Today, Apple Computer is wildly successful, has revolutionized the way we get and use information, employs 46,000 people, has created thousand of other jobs in suppliers, has made millionaires of hundreds of its employees through stock option grants, and has more cash on hand than the U.S. government!<br /><br />Is Apple Computer greedy? If so, give me more of it. All of those job holders plus the roughly seventy percent of Americans who are either directly or indirectly dependent upon corporations for some of their financial well being through the stock market, mutual finds, or retirement plans would probably agree.<br /><br />Was Steve Jobs greedy? When he died, he was worth billions, and was also the largest shareholder in Disney Corporation (through another brilliant deal of his). Does he really need that much money? <br /><br />I celebrate what Steve Jobs did. It’s the quintessential American story. Look at how many other people his “greed”, if you want to call it that, has enriched. <br /><br />I don’t want to soak the rich such as Steve Jobs and others of his ilk; I want to join them!<br /><br />Contrast these stories with the government’s intense desire for money and power. <br /><br />During the last three years or so, our economy has gone through some very tough times, and it still is sickly. Obama has said that we were at the “precipice” economically. Given all of that, has the government cut back any? Has Congress taken a pay cut? Have any of Obama’s multitudinous czars taken a pay cut? Has the federal bureaucracy been cut? Has anybody in the federal government lost his job due to a reduction in force? Has federal spending been cut such that the budget is balanced, as corporations do routinely when times are tough? <br /><br />None of that has happened. Quite the contrary. Obama is telling Congress it needs to spend MORE, and he is calling for higher taxes. Think about that. In the midst of all of this economic carnage, his response is to go on yet another spending spree and to demand that the federal government be given more of our money. <br /><br />No, I don’t worry about corporate greed, because corporations have very limited power over me. In most instances, I can simply walk away from them if I think they are misbehaving. Corporations can’t pass a law requiring me to do something. <br /><br />But the government, now they have real power over my life. <br /><br />I worry about a government that is continually demanding more money from whomever seems to be the most promising target at the time. I worry about a government so power crazed that it wants to get total control of the very air that I breathe. I worry about a government that is so hell bent on exercising absolute control over my life that it is trying to seize the medical system and associated decisions that determine whether I live or die. I worry about a government that is completely incapable of showing even a modicum of financial responsibility. I worry about a government that is starting to tell me what I can and cannot eat. I worry about a government that pits one group of Americans against another in class warfare rhetoric to foment hate, under the strategy that if the people are fighting amongst themselves, the government can do pretty much what it wants. I worry about a government that uses its “bully pulpit” and the force of law in these ways.<br /><br />If that’s not “greed”, then the word has no meaning. Government greed is the most dangerous kind, because it’s extremely difficult to rein it in. That’s the greed we should all be worried about it.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-40738549148654448142011-09-29T18:15:00.000-07:002011-09-29T18:23:35.803-07:00Is Social Security A Ponzi Scheme?Few people attract so much notoriety that their name is coined into a new word. One interesting example is the word “hooker”, meaning a prostitute, which came to us from General Joseph Hooker during the Civil War who reportedly had so many women of ill-repute hanging around his headquarters that they became known as “hookers”.<br /><br />Another example is “Ponzi scheme”.<br /><br />Recently, a Presidential candidate said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. What was he talking about?<br /><br />According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, a “Ponzi scheme” is an investment fraud that involves the payment of “returns” to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest their money in opportunities that are claimed to generate very high rates of return with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the perpetrators focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to siphon off for personal use, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.<br /><br />With little or no real earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of new money from investors in order to remain in operation. Ponzi schemes collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit enough new investors or when a large number of existing investors ask to cash out.<br /><br />The schemes are named after Charles Ponzi, who conned thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme in 1916. At a time when the annual bank account interest rate was 5%, Ponzi promised investors that he could provide a 50% return in only 90 days. Ponzi initially bought international mail coupons in support of his scheme with the intent of reselling them in another country at a higher price, but he quickly switched to using new investors’ money to pay the promised high returns to earlier investors. Once Ponzi was no longer able to persuade enough investors to keep giving him additional money, his scheme collapsed. Ponzi didn’t invent this type of fraud, but he took in so much money that his was the first to become widely known in the U.S.<br /><br />Under the Social Security (SS) system, employees and employers pay into the system, and employees receive a monthly pension upon retirement. <br /><br />The payments to current SS recipients are taken from current incoming SS money. Any money that is not paid out is put into certain special U.S. Government bonds. That is, the SS system loans any left-over money to the rest of the government, which immediately spends it, as part of general revenues, on defense, the federal bureaucracy, other entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid), interest, and miscellaneous spending. None of the SS money taken in every year is saved, invested, put aside, or any such thing. The money is either paid out to SS recipients or used for other government spending. <br /><br />There is no SS “lockbox”. There also is no SS “trust fund” in the sense of a bank account somewhere with money in it that can be drawn on as needed. The SS trust fund, or lockbox, consists solely of promises by the rest of the government to pay the SS system back someday. But since the entire federal government is operating at a deficit and there is a national debt, there is no reserve money with which the SS trust fund can be paid back. The only assurance that the SS system can ever get this money back is the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.<br /><br />The very first SS recipient, one Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, received her first check of $22.54 on January 1, 1940. She had paid only $44 in SS taxes over a three year period, but collected a total of $20,993 in benefits, since she lived to be 100. Such high returns were possible in the early years of SS since there were many people paying into the system and only a few taking benefits out. In 1950, there were 15 workers supporting every SS retiree. Today, there are just over three. By 2030, it’ll be down to two. The “baby boomers” are starting to retire and it’s swamping the system.<br /><br />Another issue affecting SS negatively is that people are living longer and therefore collecting benefits longer. Data from the National Center for Health Statistics show that in 1900 the life expectancy was 47.3 years; 68.2 years in 1950; and 77.3 in 2002. When SS was first enacted in 1935, people didn’t live nearly as long as now, and so the system wasn’t designed to handle an aging population.<br /><br />In 2010, annual SS costs (benefits paid out plus administration) exceeded non-interest income. However, from 2010 through 2022, total SS income including interest will be more than enough to cover costs. Beginning in 2023, SS assets (bonds and interest) will start to diminish until they are gone in 2036. At that time, there will be no more bonds to redeem or interest income from them, so SS will have only current tax revenues with which to pay benefits. Unless something is changed, that tax revenue stream will support benefits at a level of 77% of what has been promised, and the benefit level will gradually decline thereafter. In order to keep benefits at 100%, either SS taxes will have to be increased significantly or benefits will have to be reduced significantly, or some combination thereof.<br /><br />Is Social Security a Ponzi scheme? No, because Congress can simply raise taxes and/or reduce benefits in order to keep the system solvent. <br /><br />But SS does bear some disconcerting resemblance to a Ponzi scheme. Both pay early participants with money taken in from more recent participants. Both function best when there is a continual supply of many new participants. Both systems are unable to pay all participants the full benefits promised.<br /><br />The key difference is that a Ponzi scheme is doomed to ultimate implosion since it cannot, by its nature, restructure itself. A Ponzi scheme can only keep on keepin’ on until the day of reckoning finally comes. SS will not collapse; it will be fundamentally modified, some day when Congress gets the will, into a sustainable program given today’s demographics.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-36778701643167500502011-09-21T11:33:00.000-07:002011-09-21T11:57:05.724-07:00Obama Wants More Taxes On The "Rich"President Obama is worried about the "fairness" of the federal tax code. He says he wants changes to make sure millionaires are taxed at a higher rate than their secretaries. I guess he doesn't know that they already are.<br /><br />On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.<br /><br />This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 % of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes, and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 % of their income in taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 %.<br /><br />The latest IRS figures are from 2009 and are limited to federal income taxes; they show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 % of their income in federal income taxes. Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 % in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 %.<br /><br />The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46% of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes at all this year, although they will pay other taxes.<br /><br />If Obama wants to make the federal tax code "fair", he's barking up the wrong tree. As shown above through hard numbers, the "rich" already pay more than their "fair share". Obama needs to go after those 46 % of the people who pay not a dime in federal income tax. Wouldn't "fairness" require that everyone pay at least something?Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-28454511505778632792011-09-18T14:11:00.000-07:002011-09-18T14:17:22.617-07:00The King's SpeechIt’s déjà vu all over again.<br /><br />President Obama recently gave his umpteenth speech about the bleak situation we have with jobs and the economy and what needs to be done to make things better. That’ll solve our economic problems – another speech. <br /><br />The next day, the stock market dropped three hundred points.<br /><br />Obama proposed his latest and greatest plan to fix the economy, and it was for more of the same: massive government spending, throwing money at his favored groups, demonizing “the rich”, repairing the infrastructure, touting “green jobs” as the savior of the economy, demanding that Congress pass his proposal immediately, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />You may have detected that I am more than a little skeptical, which I am, because we have been down this road before with Obama. I’m sure you all remember the last stimulus, in 2009. It was twice as big as this one; we were told at the time that it would revive the economy and keep unemployment under eight percent. We were also told back then that that stimulus, like this one, had to be passed immediately in order to avoid financial calamity. Now, two years later, unemployment is stuck at over nine percent, the economy has flat lined, the housing market is non-existent, and there is almost no good economic news. Everything that Obama and crew told us the last stimulus would prevent has happened! So why would anybody still listen to these people when it comes to the economy and jobs? They are obviously clueless.<br /><br />I actually read in the paper after Obama’s speech that an economist at Moody’s Analytics said this latest stimulus plan would reduce the unemployment rate to, you guessed it, eight percent!! <br /><br />Of late, Obama has developed a new concern for the federal budget deficit, or at least he wants us to think so. In his speech, he said that the new spending called for in his current plan will not increase the deficit because everything in his bill will be “paid for”. He didn’t tell us how it would be paid for, though; he promised to do that later.<br /><br /> You can’t make this stuff up.<br /><br />No matter which way one looks at Obama’s new plan, you find absurdities. Let’s start on a broad, overall scale and then work our way down to some of the specifics.<br /><br />OK, from the 30,000 foot level, as they say, let’s look at this plan. It’s another government stimulus, much like the last one, only this one is smaller by half. It’s about half as big as the 2009 stimulus, and that one, by any objective measure, was a total failure. Here’s the absurdity: If a big stimulus has already failed, why will a smaller one now work? The only logical argument one could make is that the last stimulus failed because it wasn’t big enough, so now we need a larger one. But a smaller one --- ? Absurd.<br /><br />Let’s go on to some of the specifics of the new plan. <br /><br />It calls for government spending to keep teachers, firemen, and police on the job. But why do we only want to keep these groups employed? With the jobs picture being as bleak as it is, we need to do something to increase job creation across the board; we need to get everyone back to work. We need to create economic conditions such that all companies, large and small, in every industry, in every location, will be able to expand and start hiring. It makes no economic sense whatsoever to restrict job creation efforts to just some segments of the work force.<br /><br />Now let’s look at the proposed tax breaks in Obama’s plan for companies that hire or increase wages.<br /><br />I worked in the corporate world for over thirty years as an engineer and manager at various levels up to vice president. During that time, I must have hired literally hundreds of people. Never, not once, did I or anyone I knew or observed ever hire somebody because of a tax break, nor would we have. That’s not why businesses and companies hire.<br /><br />Hiring is a serious matter to companies. It involves taking on a significant new expense that will be there far into the future. Note: I’m not talking about temporary or seasonal help here. Companies are looking out into the future, not just the short term. They don’t like to have to lay people off, so they only hire when they are convinced that they can afford it in the long term and that the additional sales will be there to pay for it. Hiring is a business decision, not a public service matter. <br /><br />People are hired because the company has more work than it can handle, or because the company is confident that additional business is coming, or because they see a new business opportunity, or they want to do a better job of servicing customers. Those are the reasons that companies hire, certainly not because of some one time tax break or other such gimmick. <br /><br />People who think that such short term tweaking of tax provisions here and there will stimulate broad scale hiring and reduce unemployment in the long term have absolutely no knowledge of how the business world operates. In the real world, that kind of an approach is pure nonsense.<br /><br />Then there is the part of Obama’s new plan about giving a tax break to companies that increase workers’ wages. This is so idiotic it defies belief. How could increasing wages possibly spur hiring? If anything, such an action would have the opposite effect, since the more a company pays existing employees, the less money it has to hire new ones. Furthermore, the tax break is a, again, one-time thing, but the increased wages are permanent, so no business will pay the slightest attention to this provision of Obama’s new plan. <br /><br />Obama wants to, once again, extend unemployment benefits. Regardless of the merits of this proposal on humanitarian grounds, as far as job creation is concerned, it’s another absurdity. Paying people not to work for an even longer period of time will obviously not get them a job. Our goal in this area shouldn’t be to keep people on the unemployment roles for a long time; or goal should be to get them off of unemployment because they have gone back to work. The unemployed don’t need another government handout; they need a job. Extending unemployment benefits will not get them onto somebody’s payroll; if anything, it might discourage them from looking hard.<br /><br />I have a suggestion for President Obama: If you want to stimulate the economy and job creation across the board, stop doing those things that stymie that. Mr. Obama, you’re part of the problem, and if you truly care about job creation, here are some things you could stop doing.<br /><br />First, stop demonizing “the rich”. We continually hear you talking about how the rich don’t pay their fair share, that they are greedy, that they got where they are because they won life’s lottery rather than due to their own hard work, etc. Why would anybody, such as a sole proprietor or a small business, who can afford to hire someone actually do it when they feel they are being targeted by the government? So just stop it, Mr. Obama.<br /><br />Next Mr. Obama, stop punishing companies that you regard as unworthy or that your political cronies don’t like. <br />Your National Labor Relations Board recently sued Boeing for moving a factory from a unionized state to a right-to-work state, which was displeasing to your union buddies.<br /><br />Gibson Guitar was raided by the government because of some obscure law about wood that they import from India. <br />Coal users and producers have been on your hit list for years. You famously stated that you want to bankrupt the coal industry, because you think they are polluters. Your EPA recently issued new emission standards for coal-fired power plants, which will result in the closing of plants and the loss of jobs. <br /><br />You apparently don’t like oil drillers, either, as you have stopped any new offshore oil exploration or drilling, loosing potentially tens of thousands of high paying jobs.<br /> <br />Mr. Obama, if you really care about jobs, just stop this jihad against companies and businesses.<br /><br />Once you have stopped you job-killing behavior, Mr. Obama, here are two positive actions and one attitude adjustment you could undertake. These alone would have a game-changing effect on the U.S. economy and job creation.<br /><br />Number 1. The U.S. has the highest corporate income tax rate in the world – 35%. Cut it. You could follow the example of Canada, and use their 16% rate. With this one action, you’d see so much increased business activity and the hiring that goes along with it that your head would swim.<br /><br />Next, take a machete to onerous government regulations on business. A good start would be to cut the EPA staff by, say, half, and then go from there on a rampage through other government regulators. Companies would save millions, which they would be more than glad to use on business development. This, too, would promote economic expansion and job creation in a significant fashion.<br /><br />Finally, Mr. Obama, have an epiphany. Start looking at companies and businesses of all sizes as the drivers of our economic prosperity that they are. Come to realize that the private economy, not government, creates wealth. Celebrate our free enterprise system and the magnificent benefits we all receive from it.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-36456552122481822392011-09-12T06:23:00.000-07:002011-09-12T06:27:11.700-07:00Big EducationRadford University (RU) raised tuition by 8% this year, after an 11.3% increase last year. That’s a 19.3% increase in just two years. Other Virginia colleges and universities have had similar tuition increases in recent years, as have colleges around the country. One year of a college education now typically costs between $20,000 and $50,000, which comes out to $80,000 to $200,000 for the four years it normally takes to graduate. <br /><br />My entire undergraduate education at the University of Virginia cost me a total of about 12 or $13,000 (that’s for tuition, fees, room, food, books, everything). Now at UVA, it’s going to cost you $25,000 a year, at least. That’s a 669% increase (since 1969).<br /><br />Here is a test: Why do we not hear politicians, newspapers, TV talking heads, pundits, and all the chattering class fulminating about “big education” and price gouging and demanding investigations, and all that?Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-73992373546364688132011-08-30T13:41:00.000-07:002011-08-30T13:43:35.996-07:00Exegesis on "ed"This is the one that pushed me over the edge.
<br />
<br />Yesterday, I went to McDonald’s. This is something I do now and then as a reward for having done some especially hard work. I had been in the vineyard all day pruning the vines and picking off bad grapes one-by-one, getting ready for the harvest. So, on the way home, I stopped at McDonald’s to get a small burger, small fries, and a soda, a line-up that would be heavenly after a hot day in the field.
<br />
<br />And then the trouble started.
<br />
<br />I am particular about what is put on my hamburger. I want lettuce, tomato, and onion on it, but nothing else. Nothing else; especially not mayonnaise, mustard, or ketchup. So, on that day, I innocently ordered a burger with lettuce, tomato, and onion only, as I have done many times before. But this time, things progressed differently. The lovely young lady behind the counter asked if I wanted leaf lettuce or shred lettuce on my burger. I said that I’d have shredded lettuce, she punched it in, and it came up on the screen: shred lettuce. I saw it with my own two eyes: shred lettuce. I wasn’t just misunderstanding her; they were actually calling it “shred lettuce”.
<br />
<br />So I now must address this issue, which has been tormenting me for years: the omission of “ed” in words that cry out for it to be there. I can no longer let it go. Which is one of my problems; I can’t let anything go. Really, I get concerned about such matters, because they are important to an inquisitive and disciplined mind. Yes, the proper use of “ed” is critical, because if we don’t pay attention to such details in matters of linguistics, before long we’ll all be talking baby talk.
<br />
<br />By the way, I never talked baby talk to my babies. I conjugated verbs to them instead, but that’s another story.
<br />
<br />Back to “shred lettuce”. Don’t the people running McDonald’s know that “shred lettuce” is what you do in order to get “shredded lettuce” to put on burgers? How can they not know this?
<br />
<br />This is not the only time I’ve been haunted by a missing “ed”.
<br />
<br />I actually saw a sign at a local produce stand that read, ”tree ripen peaches”. I am not making this up; it was right there on the sign. Don’t the fresh produce mongers know that “ripen” is the present tense of the verb “to ripen”; “ripened” is the past tense and is also used in the past perfect and future perfect tenses. “Ripen” means it’s occurring now; “ripened” means it has already happened. Voila! Peaches that have been left on the tree until they are fully ripened rather than being picked green are called “tree ripened”, because that’s what happened to them. I couldn’t sleep that night.
<br />
<br />There are more. All of these are real life examples I have personally observed, much to my consternation.
<br />
<br />When you drink cold tea with ice in it, you are consuming “iced tea”, not “ice tea”. Food that is put into cans is “canned food”. Staying with the food theme, potatoes that are mashed are ------ mashed potatoes! I have seen “mash potatoes” on a menu, and I had to bite my tongue in order to avoid making a scene. Don’t get me started on “bake potato”, because it won’t be pretty. How about “toss salad”, again, right there on a menu. What am I supposed to do, throw the salad around or something? No, it has already been “tossed” in the making, so it’s called “tossed salad”. How hard is this?
<br />
<br />Thankfully, the cereal makers understand this issue and correctly label their boxes “shredded wheat” so I don’t have to start my day by foaming at the mouth on those mornings when I have this particular cereal for breakfast.
<br />
<br />And if you do or make something the way it was done in days gone by, that item is “old fashioned”, as in: I am old fashioned about the proper use of the ed suffix.
<br />
<br />Reliving all of these horrors has drained my psychic energy. I’m emotionally exhausted. But it has been worth it, because now I’m sure the world will understand this issue and it’s importance. Finally, everyone will diligently use, and pronounce in an exaggerated fashion, the “ed” that is so needed at the end of certain words.
<br />
<br />Now, if I can just get people to understand that they don’t “graduate” high school or college, they “graduate FROM” a school, my work will be done.
<br />Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-19796164262958395322011-08-22T08:52:00.000-07:002011-08-22T09:02:56.706-07:00Saved From The Edison Light BulbWhile the politicians in Washington haven’t been able to do anything serious about unemployment, the economy, or the out-of-control government spending, it is reassuring to keep in mind that they can, in fact, solve big, important, pressing problems from time to time. Congress can rise to the occasion. For example, come January 1, Congress’s solution to one of the most serous problems to confront America in recent times will kick in. As of that date, a bill passed by Congress will save us from a deathly hazard that threatens “the nation’s future and collective health”, as the luminaries at the L. A. Times put it. That threat is the light bulb invented by Thomas Edison.
<br />
<br />Take heart, my beleaguered friends. Your 401k may have tanked, you may not have a job or any prospects for one, the U.S. Government may have less cash on hand than Apple Computer, you may have to pay an amount for your little cherubim’s college education that would have gotten a building named after you in the old days, the comrads in Washington may want to raise your taxes to cover their profligate spending because you don’t pay what they consider to be your “fair share”, Iran may be about to nuke up, the country may lurch from economic and budgetary crisis to crisis, but at least you no longer have to worry about incandescent light bulbs. Those are the ones that have that horrid little filament in them. You know, the type of light bulbs we’ve been using for the last 130 years or so.
<br />
<br />I’m sure you have been worried about them, unless you are a dim bulb indeed. As you no doubt know, incandescent light bulbs are energy hogs of the worst sort. They suck up energy like Fat Albert chowing down on the vittles over at the all-you-can-eat catfish and hush puppy shack. You have noticed that incandescent light bulbs do that, haven’t you? Pay no attention to your air conditioner or heat pump; it’s those evil light bulbs that are wreaking destruction on you and the world.
<br />
<br />But you have been saved. You no longer have to live in fear of incandescent light bulbs. You can now rest easy; CFL’s (compact fluorescent lamps) have arrived just in the nick of time.
<br />
<br />Umm, well, those CFL’s do have some very minor problems, but you needn’t worry your pretty little self about any of that.
<br />
<br />What are those problems, you say? My, my, my, aren’t you the curious one. It’s nothing, really, nothing.
<br />
<br />Oh, OK, since you insist.
<br />
<br />First of all, CFL’s contain mercury, an extremely dangerous substance. It’s a small amount, to be sure, but it’s mercury none the less.
<br />
<br />If, God forbid, one of those Earth-saving CFL’s happens to break in your house, people and pets must immediately evacuate (avoiding the “breakage area” on the way out), windows and/or doors should be opened to air the place out, central heating or air conditioning is to be turned off, and then you are to follow the seven step Hazmat clean-up procedure published by the EPA. If you use a vacuum cleaner in the clean-up process, the vacuum cleaner bag must be sealed in a plastic bag and immediately removed from the house.
<br />
<br />Because of this problem with broken CFL’s, the EPA also recommends that a drop cloth be used when replacing a CFL, in case it is dropped and broken.
<br />
<br />Since the CFL’s contain mercury, disposal is also a problem. Again, one CFL contains only a very small amount of mercury, but with the millions upon millions of them that will be used over the years, the total amount of mercury involved is significant. If the used bulbs are thrown into the trash, you’d better make sure you don’t use a trash compactor that will crush them. Even if the used CFL’s make it out to curbside unbroken, they will get deposited in a landfill to be pushed around by a bulldozer that will no doubt break them, and all of that mercury will eventually seep into the ground water. Or you could take your used CFL’s to a recycling center (being sure to tell them what you have), and let them worry about it.
<br />
<br />Other than all of that mercury stuff, the CFL’s are just great.
<br />
<br />Well, there is one other very trivial problem. Some CFL’s have been known to smoke or catch on fire. The August 2011 issue of Consumer Reports had an article under the title “Bulbs pose fire hazard” discussing this and identifying the CFL’s that have been recalled.
<br />
<br />Did I mention that CFL’s typically cost several times as much as an incandescent bulb? No matter, you’ll recoup that extra cost by means of reduced electricity usage and longer bulb life.
<br />
<br />Maybe.
<br />
<br />The Department of Energy has said that mandatory use of CFL’s will save 15 quadrillion BTU’s over the next thirty years, or about 0.013 percent of U.S. energy usage. You will personally save pennies upon pennies in your monthly electric bill.
<br />
<br />But your saving could well be eaten up by the greater cost of the CFL’s, since it turns out that they are not lasting nearly as long as expected. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in California has reported that CFL’s are lasting an average of 6.3 years verses the 9.4 that they initially estimated, or thirty-three percent less. An article in the Weekly Standard reported that a quarter of CFL’s only achieved about 40% of their projected life span. It seems that the life span tests were done under ideal conditions; e.g., turning the lamp on and leaving it on continuously. Surprise, surprise; in the real world, lights aren’t used that way. They are turned on and off, sometimes frequently, and that kind of usage reduces their life span. This is something that the incandescent people at GE and Sylvania have known for at least a hundred years, but it somehow escaped the notice of the CFL people until after they had convinced Congress to pass a law on the matter.
<br />
<br />The last light bulb factory in the U.S. has closed, and it is most likely that CFL’s will ultimately be made only in China. The additional transportation costs should be factored into the CFL cost saving calculation, but it is difficult to do as accurately. The additional cost is there, though. And so much for “buying local”.
<br />
<br />In any event, please join me in giving thanks that we live in a country where we have a government wise and caring enough to save us from incandescent light bulbs. That is of great comfort to me as I consider all of the other problems we face in this country.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-24399742949866021052011-08-18T14:25:00.000-07:002011-08-18T14:28:28.651-07:00Obama's Bus TourPresident Obama has embarked on a bus tour of the Midwest. Who is the only other national political figure to go on a bus tour in the recent times? Sarah Palin, of course. And the media ridiculed her. But now, Obama is following Sarah Palin's lead.
<br />Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-64283402565056271132011-08-06T11:41:00.000-07:002011-08-06T11:45:50.914-07:00Debt Ceiling Deal: Nothing Is Being CutHere is some real eye-opening news.<br /><br />During the last few weeks, there has been a non-stop soap opera in Washington about the federal government’s “debt ceiling”. Much of the debate has been about whether the government should cut spending or raise taxes or do some combination of both in order to get the deficit under control. We’ve heard about this plan that will cut X trillion in spending, and that plan that will cut Y trillion, and the compromise plan that will cut Z trillion. <br /><br />You know all of that; it’s not news.<br /><br />Here’s the news that has barely been mentioned because the big-spending, big government, career politicians don’t want you to be aware of it: Nothing is being cut, in any of these plans. Nothing.<br /><br />Then why do we hear from supposedly legitimate news media that federal spending is being cut, with the only debate about how much, you ask. Dear reader, let me explain.<br /><br />The federal budget is on autopilot that results in across-the-board increases occurring every year, automatically. It’s called “base line budgeting”, and here’s how it works.<br /><br />Every year, the proposed federal budget increases from the previous year by eight percent. This increased budget proposal becomes the “baseline” for budget negotiations. If it is suggested that the budget should not increase by the proposed amount but by some lesser amount instead, which is still an increase over the previous year, that suggestion is scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as a “cut”.<br /><br />Stay with me on this, because it’s vitally important.<br /><br />Let’s put some hypothetical numbers on it as an example. We’ll say that last year’s federal budget was $100 (you can put as many zeros on that as you want). The budget proposal for this year will come out initially as $108. If this proposed budget were reduced to, say, $105, it would be billed as a cut.<br /><br /> Hypothetical Example – Federal Budget Process<br /> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> Last year’s federal budget: $100<br /> Initial budget proposal for this year (the baseline): $108<br /> Final budget for this year: $105<br /> Scored as a $3 cut.<br /><br />That’s right, even though the federal budget went up from one year to the next in this example, it’s called a “cut” in politician-ese. That’s how baseline budgeting works; it’s designed to mislead the public so that politicians can claim they’re cutting the budget when in actuality the budget is going up.<br /><br />Now for the coup-de-grace. Under all the plans being debated recently in Congress concerning the federal debt ceiling, government spending will rise across the board, in some estimates by seven to nine trillion dollars over the next ten years. Nothing is being cut! Yet we hear about how these various plans will cut spending by so many trillion. That’s the intended effect of baseline budgeting, letting politicians call an increase a cut.<br /><br />Let’s move on to two other fundamental dishonesties that are rampant in the debt ceiling debate.<br /><br />There has been a lot of talk about the U.S. Government’s credit rating possibly being lowered from AAA to AA+. What is this all about?<br /><br />When a lender loans money to a borrower, the lender wants to know ahead of time the likelihood of the borrower being able to pay back the loan and the interest. That need led to credit ratings.<br /><br />If a borrower is unable to pay the interest or principle on the loan, they are said to have defaulted on the loan.<br /><br />Everyone probably knows about their credit score and how a good score makes it easier for an individual to borrow money and to get a lower interest rate. That’s because the higher a person’s credit score is, the less likely they will default on a loan.<br /><br />Government entities (and companies) are rated in a similar manner by the major credit agencies, Moody’s and Standard and Poors (S&P). Triple A is the highest rating. The U.S. Government has always had a AAA rating because there is almost no chance that it won’t be able to pay the interest on borrowed money or the principle amount when the time comes.<br /><br />Throughout this federal debt ceiling saga, one of the major reasons given as to why we must raise the debt ceiling is to prevent the federal government from defaulting on it’s loans (bonds), and to keep its credit rating from being downgraded.<br /><br />The truth is that even if the debt ceiling is not raised, the government will not default on it’s bonds. There will still be tax money coming in, and there will be enough to pay the interest on the bonds, even though other areas of spending would have to go without in that scenario. But a default would not occur.<br /><br />Next truth factoid: No matter which plan concerning the debt ceiling is finally adopted, the U.S. Government’s credit rating will go down. S&P has already said that neither of the final two proposed plans reduces federal spending enough such that Uncle Sam’s AAA rating can be maintained.<br /><br />Here are the salient points we can distill out of all of this blathering and disingenuineness about the debt ceiling:<br />1. Nothing is being cut.<br />2. The federal government will not default on its loans (bonds).<br />3. The federal government’s credit rating will be downgraded no matter which debt ceiling plan Congress adopts since none of them are serious about balancing the federal budget.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-15627185349317358202011-08-02T08:14:00.000-07:002011-08-02T08:22:32.247-07:00Obama Voted Against Raising the Debt Ceiling As A Senator"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. America deserves better."<br /><br />Barack Obama, circa 2006Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5816572003306305162.post-76275156080225418302011-07-29T14:03:00.000-07:002011-07-29T14:09:55.768-07:00Out Of Control Spending In WashingtonIt's worse than we thought. The out of control spending in Washington is so bad that Apple Computer has more money than the U.S. Government. Yes, that's right. Uncle Sam is so flat out busted that one private company has more cash on hand the the U.S. Treasury.<br /><br />Apple currently has $74.4 billion in cash on hand, but the Treasury Department now has only $73.7 billion (as reported by the BBC).<br /><br />How did Apple mange to accumulate a larger cash horde than the U.S. Government? Apple routinely, month in-month out, year in-year out, spends less than it takes in.Jessee Ringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447932585943268194noreply@blogger.com0