Raise the Roof

Yes, I have taken a hiatus from the blog, but I had to add a tidbit to remind myself of a few things later.

Here are my thoughts on the Government overseeing the student loan industry.

- Government makes it easier to get school loans
This leads to:
- More people taking out loans
and leads to:
- Rising school costs...why not raise the price, if people can afford it, then the schools will take what they can get.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45040668

This is not how things should be done. It is dangerous for the schools to become reliant on inflated tuition rates, and when the government realizes that over-spending is acutally a problem and cannot be continued indefinitely; the loan aid will go away and no will be able to afford college.

The Tax Tale

As this Forbes article explains tax structures (for the wealthy), I can't help but wonder if all the news about the disparity that we are hearing about between the rich and poor is accurate.

Note to Self...

I wanted to remind my future self of what is going on today in regards to debt talks, etc..., in Washington these days. The democrats are shouting from the mountain-top that we must reach a "compromise" in meeting the countries fiscal obligations. They want us to raise taxes and cut spending.

We have been spending wildly for some time now (as a nation), and have accrued debt surpassing 14 trillion, about to be raised to 16 or so trillion dollars. We constantly spend more than we raise in tax revenue...regardless of what that tax revenue is.

Are we to believe that taking more money from the taxpayers (either rich or poor) will somehow fix the spending problem that exists today?

So many people today are unable to see what is really going on. Much of the media is a willing participant, being spoon-fed by our elected leaders, claiming that the smoke and mirrors that we all see is in fact, fact. Even the most conservative Americans may approve tax-hikes some day, when our leaders show us that they have some idea on how to spend it with wisdom and prudence.

A look at Socialism

"Freedom is choice, choice requires responsibility." -Yuri Maltsev

Yuri presents a fascinating view of the socialist regime in Soviet Russia revolving around the agriculture system. It is interesting to see that the soviets were basically forcing people to farm for free and give away all their food. The soviets would basically kill as many people as necessary to keep the rest of the peasant motivated to continue working. The false propaganda that we heard and acted on in regards to the agricultural problems in the Soviet Union is staggering. Great piece on how socialism works.

http://mises.org/media/6357/What-Soviet-Agriculture-Teaches-Us

Stimulus Report

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 - SEVENTH QUARTERLY REPORT

The report above, released by the White House on July 1 shows some interesting data. Two key elements stand out:
1) Estimates say that between 2.4 million and 3.6 million jobs have been funded by the stimulus. Having that large of a range shows me that they probably just guessed, and I have seen many reports showing that they double-counted and all kinds of shenanigans to get this number. Suffice it to say that the low end is pretty optimistic, but let's assume that it is accurate for now.
2) Total expenditures so far have reached $666,300,000,000...that's 666.3 billion.

That means that the government has spent between $185,083 and $277,625 (depending on which number you choose to believe for each job created/saved.

Couple these numbers with the New York Times report that Executive pay has risen 23% over the last year while middle-income earnings have remained stagnant and you begin to see a pattern.

There are a few patterns that MAY be connected to each other over the same time frame:
- Increased government (debt) spending
- Increased pay inequality among the rich and poor
- Increasing number of beauracrats blaming each other for fiscal problems while they continue to grow the size and spending within government

This shows me once again that "intentions" don't equal results. I have no problems with extreme cost-cutting measures that will force legislators to start deciding where to cut spending. Maybe those cuts will lead to extremely positive results in the real world of income and expenses that most of us live in.

Sorry, I've been busy raising my personal debt ceiling

I have been absent from writing for a while, I guess the business of life kept me away. There are too many distorting stories out about the debt ceiling and republicans walking away from choices that supposedly have to happen.

First read this powerful quote again:
"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. Americans deserve better."

This quote is from 2006 when our national debt was just over $7 trillion.

...... March 20, 2006 - Senator Obama.

Contrast that with the actions of today.

Don't buy in to the notion that Republicans are detroying the country by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Obama and the democrats setup rediculous tax cut scenarios that make people feel like they are deciding between feeding the homeless or subsidizing the purchase of a private jet. The US will only default on it's debt payments if it stops paying them, not because the debt ceiling has been reached. Currently, we still bring in more revenue than is required to just pay the debt.

Not raising the debt limit will simply force the government to stop spending money. Obama and the dems have been passing budgets that fall TRILLIONS of dollars over what we bring in each year and are acting like republicans are destroying the world by not voting to allow more debt spending. The current problem has been created by democrats and they seem to be getting away with blaming republicans for it. Oddly enough, Obama refused to vote for any debt ceiling increases while he was in the senate. He is trying to

Don't get me wrong, Bush and Republicans have overspent too, but let's stop blaming the past and focus on solutions. The policy of the current administration is to spend, spend, spend and hope that the economy starts clicking. It's not working.

Pack a Lunch

People like the principal at the school in this story will end freedom as we know it. Hopefully we can keep them out of offices that affect more people. Here are a few highlights:

"Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria."

"Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices."

"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

"...parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food.""

I can only conclude that parents have no control over their children. Luckily one parent in the article made the argument that their child is too picky, and mandating that they eat the lunch at school is a not good. Wait a minute, even more proof that parents have no control over their children. What are we coming to that we even need to have this conversation? I suppose that we should all learn to rely on big-brother to provide us healthy meals, rather than learning to eat well on our own.

I couldn't help but point out this headline.

I'll let you come to your own conclusions about how the mainstream media portrays certain people/parties.

Oil

I have been amazed at the US involvement in Lybia. While waging two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it befuddled me to see a no fly zone being talked about, then enacted in Lybia. Apparently, Gadhafi is killing a lot of citizens in Lybia which is reason enough to involve ourselves in a war that is not ours....unless the country is Iraq and the leader's name is Hussein.

President Obama's words about 4 years ago seemed clear enough when discussing an attack on Iran: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." What changed?

Things became a little clearer a couple weeks ago when we hear that Lybia has some of the best oil (light and sweet) in the world. One democratic lawmaker is now making this known.

Unfortunately, while talking about the fact that we are involved in wars because of oil, he calls for a renewable energy plan. Renewable energy will never succeed until the private sector embraces a solution. If the government would get out of the way, we could make some progress.

The renewable energy plan sounds good, but it is disingenuous. If we are really fighting a war because of oil, then finding new oil is the current solution. I hear there is a lot of it in Alaska and other places in the US, but certain people in Washington our preventing companies from accessing that oil. Doesn't make much sense to me. It seems that we could save a lot of oil by not waging wars over oil and simply dig it up from our own back yard.

A Glimpse at the Future...from the Past

I can't remember if I posted this clip previously, but it came on my radar again recently and I find it absolutely amazing. 50 years ago, Ronald Reagan is speaking directly to issues we are facing today; and to the dangers of liberalism. This proves to me that the principles of conservatism have remained largely unchanged and are as potent as they were when this great nation was founded. The mechanism of our increasingly large government is changing the landscape of this country, chiefly by removing our freedom under the guise of helping people. We need to return to the principles that our founders laid out, and empower people to succeed once again.

Listen to this powerful audio from one of the great leaders in US history.

Climate Change Again

Apparently, a small-scale nuclear war could cause 'unprecendented' global cooling, causing floods and famine. But I thought global warming was going to cause floods and famine?

Two conclusions:
- We need not worry about any climate change because we can clearly affect it in either direction
- We humans aren't really affecting things as much as we think

I totally agree with the science behind much of this...various chemicals and elements being able to warm and cool faster in various environments. I am very sceptical however that human activity is even close to warming/cooling elements that the earth itself is responsible for.

Quote

"Thinking that printing money will help the economy is like thinking that a thermometer will make it hotter outside." -Radio Commercial

A Bargain

I have to comment on the protests coming out of the public sector unions in Ohio and Wisconsin. To me this is very shameful, and I wish weren't even in this position. Which side am I on?

Comments from leaders in the public unions have criticized the republican governors and state representatives in these states for trying to take away the rights of the hard working teachers, firefighters, policemen, and all public workers. They couldn't be more wrong.

When these public unions are "negotiating" their wages and benefits, they are not squeezing every penny they can out of evil politicians, they are taking ME to the cleaners. Public sector unions are bargaining against every private sector worker in their county, city, state and country...their neighbors.

Don't let these protesters fool you into thinking that the state leaders are the ones to blame, we are all paying their way, and they need to stop and look at the reality around them.

I have zero sympathy for public sector workers who think they "deserve" anything...zero, zilch, nadda. I'm probably offending friends and family here, but I work hard and maintain my job on the merits and quality of my work.

The union rules for my local school district are ridiculous:
- guaranteed wage increases
- greater than 90% health benefits covered
- guaranteed pension benefits

It's pretty interesting looking at the salary database here for Ohio. The thought that those in unions are fighting against me for more pay and benefits makes me gag a little bit. My $3000 county property tax bill hard at work...protesting at the statehouse.

Quote of the Day

"To conserve resources, someone must own them." - Walter E. Williams

Who Said It?

"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. Americans deserve better."

This quote is from 2006 when our national debt was just over $7 trillion.

...... March 20, 2006 - Senator Obama.

Go figure.

Is it really Science?

..."Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.

One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.

He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'

After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.

The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz17M33HTgN

Fiscal Fix: Discussion

NPR is reporting that much of the meaningful cuts in the "Fiscal Fix" that were released a few weeks ago are not popular among a majority of voters and many lawmakers. I wanted to comment on ONE of the items in the report that I think is exactly what we need, although potentially hard to swallow.

One of the recommendations by the commission was reducing tax rates for every into 3 brackets ranging from about 12% - 24% (from what I remember) and in turn eliminating the mortgage tax break for homeowners. I think this is great.

For one this option removes the government incentives to borrow money, especially for housing. Even without directly addressing the problems with Freddie and Fannie lending, this would move governmental influence away from the mortgage market, eliminating the false incentive that writing off the interest on our loans is doing us a bit favor.

Also, lowering the overall tax rates for EVERYONE, and getting rid of tax breaks further eliminates governmental influence in the markets. Everything becomes much more simple. We pay our taxes, and we don't have to jump through hoops and spend all our resources looking for breaks and loopholes....although I still think a "fair tax" might be the way to go.

The fiscal commission does fall short in some areas, but the tax changes seem positive to me. The Healthcare legislation (Obamacare) will surely need to be removed to also save money. We must get the bearacracy out of the way, if we really want to save money. When people are spending money that is not theirs, they will not be nearly as careful with it as we would ourselves.

Thanksgiving

"On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.

"But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness," destined to become the home of the Kennedy family. "There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning.

During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.

When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Yes, it was Indians that taught the white man how to skin beasts. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.

Here is the part [of Thanksgiving] that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.

All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.

Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.

He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.

"That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened?

It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh?

What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!

But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.

What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.

"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'

Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?

Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.

Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?

'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'

Bradford doesn't sound like much of a... liberal Democrat, "does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes.

Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47)

In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London.

And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'"

-Rush Limbaugh

Meet the Press

There is some serious mis-representation going on by the media about votes in the congress. This, of course, has been going on forever, but I think it is important for us to see the real picture about the partisinship in the congress.

On November 18, 2010 there was a vote to extend long-term unemployment benefits for 60 days, at a cost of $12 billion or so dollars. Keep in mind that people on unemployment get 26 weeks of State funded benefits and then 99(!) weeks of Federally funded benefits. If you lose your job, you are potentially eligible for some kind of compensation for the next TWO YEARS! This is rediculous. There is absolutely no excuse for not finding a job in two years. If you can't find one...make one for yourself. Unemployment benefits seem to provide a nice benefit at a reasonable cost when the unexpected happens and people need a buffer for a few weeks (maybe months) while they figure out what to do...but the current length is rediculous.

Anyway, back to my original point. There are many reports circulating like this one in the New York Times that Republicans have blocked the legislation to extend benefits. Is this true?

Here are some facts:
- 435 members in the House of Representatives
- 2/3 majority needed to pass this legislation - that means 261 votes needed.
- The unemployment extension lost with only 258 vote Yea...they fell 3 votes short.

Who gets the blame? Republicans, because all 143 present voted against it. What they don't really tell you is that there were 11 democrats who voted against it as well. Keep in mind that they were only 3 votes short. There is no way that Republicans can block legislation, the Democrats have a super-majority.

This message by the press and many on the left have been happening for years since the Democrats took control of the House.

The facts are that there is unity and bipartisinship amongst Republicans and some Democrats against debt-spending measures that the leadership is trying to push.

Look back on all the legislation that hasn't gone through the House over the last couple of years, then think about why you've been told nothing is happening. Republicans have been powerless to stop anything IF the Democrats were unified in their efforts. Luckily there are some clear-thinking Democrats out there that realized some of the legislation being pounded through is not good for us and have voted against it.

Food Insecure

Check out these Obesity (BMI) trends from the CDC. It is pretty startling that we are all getting so fat. I know my waistline could use some discipline. Only D.C. and Colorado have average BMI rates under 20%.

Then we see reports from US Department of Agriculture that an increasing number of Americans are facing "Hunger Insecurity". As of 2009, almost 15% of US households feel they don't have access to enough food.

These reports are decieving and actually very revealing if we read them properly. I see obesity increasing at the same time that we feel like we need more food than we are getting. Are the 15% actually starving, or are they obese and feel insecure about the average portions they are able to find and purchase? I am sarcastic on one hand, but seriously curious on the other.

Are we doing a dis-service to the starving people around the world by suggesting that Americans do not have "access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all members of the household?"

I can think of two government programs that can be cut immediately.