What to do this election cycle

I'm not sure. One thing I won't do is vote for the current president, President Barack Obama. That part is simple. But what do people like me do who love the radical domestic economic views that Ron Paul has. He wants to get rid of much of the federal government and the Federal Reserve or at least largely downsize its power. He wants to have law enforcement focus its attention on what the federal government's law enforcement is suppose to focus on. I'm not a legalize all drugs guy, but I do wish the Fed would stop worrying so much about Pot and more so on Immigration and violence.

Paul though is an isolationists. I do support some of those foreign policy views. Lets stop rebuilding nations with our money when we are in such tough times here at home. Lets close down some of these military bases for sure. But we can't turn our back on Iran and other Middle East countries that are not kind to civilization including American Civilization. And lets not turn our back on Israel of course.

But the other Candidates do not all have the best history. Rick Santorum wants to benefit some businesses over others and is not a complete Free Trade supporter as I am. Gingrich has a lot of ideas, but that's part of his problem. He has had a lot of ideas that were not truly conservative. He might trust his own intellect(something he does have a lot of) over his principals sometimes.

Romney is not a true conservative with Libertarian views at all. We know about healthcare and my guess is he would even grow the department of education even more based not on his proposed policies but his principals. I believe he trusts government more than he says. If he did not he would have been a smaller state government governor. He also does not have the radical tax plan and local economics plan that I would favor such as a complete overhaul in the tax code as Gingrich supports.

With all this and the fact that my future favorites such as the Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindel and maybe Mitch Daniels are a term away from running. But These guys and maybe Governor Chris Christie are future stars that I can truly support.

From a philosophical standpoint Michele bachmann was the closest to the positions that I hold. But she was not a real strong candidate and might have been before her time. I think for a female, and it might be unfortunate, but it might be the state of our society, she might need to be a governor or at least have more experience before running for President although she does have the views that I would largely favor.

In the end we still have to pick someone. The truth be told, I would love for Newt Gingrich to win election. Get some of his better ideas on economics passed and be a strong leader although that is a questionable flaw of his. But I hope he runs, and then in a perfect world, maybe in four years Republicans nominate someone new. But then again, if he does poorly, Republicans would probably lose again to Democrat Secretary of the State Clinton. But at this point, I believe that I have to put my faith and support behind Gingrich for the Republican nomination. Although whoever runs against the current president, will get my vote.

My take on the Pastor Robert Jeffress

Lots of media attention has been spent on the comments of Pastor Robert Jeffress. Jeffress is a First Baptist Church pastor in Texas who introduced Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry at a recent event. He was not picked by Perry to introduce him, the event staff made that decision.

Pastor Jeffress has said and continues to say that Mormonism is a Cult and not Christianity. This sparked controversy in this election cycle for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. Would I vote for Perry over Mitt Romney because Perry is an Evangelical Christian and Romney is a Mormon? NO! Their differences in faith would make no difference in my election decision. If I remember correctly, Lincoln was not an orthodox Christian and in fact his opponent Douglass was more of an orthodox Christian. But I'm glad Lincoln was President. Many today consider Lincoln our greatest President ever in fact. Other devout "Christians" have done immoral things while in office. So for this pastor to make a person's religion so central to the election was a mistake. But I do not blame him entirely and do not know if that was his goal.

The media has been all over this "controversy" from the start. But why? Is it because he made this such a central issue in the campaign? No. Its because the media is wondering if the other candidates, including Perry, believes that Mormonism is a Cult or a Christian Religion. They want to spark controversy where there should be no controversy.

To be a devout Biblical Evangelical Christian, one must profess to believe in the Word of God, the Bible. If that person believes the Bible but then says that other faiths are just as good or that other faiths are on par with Christianity, then they are not really devout Biblical Evangelical Christians. A devout believer has a top ultimate goal. Their job is to help the poor for sure. They should help widows and protect the needy. But their ultimate responsibility is to spread the Gospel of Christ and try to bring about new believers that will spend eternity in Heaven. If they sacrifice that for whatever reason, they are not allowing themselves to be an ultimate witness for the calling of Christ.

I have not met a Mormon that was not a good person. I believe that me and Mitt Romney would get along real well. But if my belief in the Word of God was contrary to his belief in Mormonism, then as a Christian I would be called to the purpose of helping him become a Christian and have a personal relationship with Christ. To do otherwise would not only be a disservice to Christ but a disservice to him. As the Bible says that the punishment for Sin is Hell. If I as a Christian are to believe that and I believe that the only way to heaven is through a personal relationship with Christ, how can I retract my statement that any faith, whether Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or Catholic Christianity, is a false teaching and that those people are not true "Christian believers"? Do this in a respectful manner. Do not protest outside their churches. And do not introduce candidates for President under that banner. But for the Sake of Christ try to reach the lost.

The media wants to make this an issue because of our cultural relativism world that we live in today. That the only wrong in life is to tell someone else they they are wrong. That the only right is to be open armed to everyone and to not chastise or criticize. The reality is that if a Christian truly loved the lost and wanted them to repent and accept Christ Jesus as their personal savior, the mean cruel thing to do would be to allow that person to go through life without being criticized or shown the true ways which then causes that person to spend eternity in Hell.

Pastor Jeffress was wrong to bring that subject up in that setting. But to think that he is wrong or a bad person for believing what the Bible says is so ignorant that one must believe that there is a different motivation here. I believe that motivation is to sidetrack Republicans from keeping their focus on the real issue. Get a person in the White House that will get this nation back on track.

How the Fair Tax is not Regressive

Herman Cain, now a candidate for the Republican nominee for President, is proposing a 999 tax plan that would put a 9 percent tax on income, 9 percent tax on business, and a 9 percent sales tax as a tax system that would replace the entire tax code. This plan is not permanent and eventually becomes the "Fair Tax". The Fair Tax would replace the entire tax code that we currently have and replace it with a simple 23% sales tax. The number is not official but it would be around that amount.

The purpose of this blog entry will be to explain how the number one argument against this tax system, its regressiveness, is false. Regressive meaning it will penalize the poor and middle class more so than the rich. Our current tax system in progressive in that it taxes rich people more as you make more money. That is absolute truth contrary to what you see in the media and by some on the left who try to mischaracterize the truth.

The reason Cain's "Fair Tax" is NOT regressive is because of a number of reasons:

First: The elimination of the Payroll tax. All workers who work legally and are paid legally pay two taxes on Medicare and Social Security even if they end up paying no other Federal Income Tax (FICA). That tax is roughly 7%. In reality it is 14% because your employer must match that tax with what is termed their "payroll tax". Now businesses are not stupid. When they hired you they took into consideration what it costs to hire you and adjust your pay accordingly. In other words, you would be paid slightly more if not for this payroll tax. Well now this tax is eliminated. Thus not only do you not pay that tax, but your employer will likely pay you more since they no longer have to match your contribution as well.

Second: You get a Pre-bate check for all products up to the poverty level. In other words, whatever the government statistic is for what it would cost to raise a family and pay for food to feed that family and other necessities, you would receive a check to cover that part of the tax. In other words, the "Fair Tax" will only be a sales tax on items you buy that are above the necessity level. Thus the poorest among us will continue to not pay taxes on those items. If your income is only at the level in which you can only afford the basic necessities of life, you will still not be paying taxes to the federal government on those necessary items.

Third: With businesses no longer paying taxes, it will now be easier to get a job and wage rates are likely to rise as well. this helps the poor and the working class, as well as the middle class more than anyone. That is not regressive that is amazing!

Fourth: this tax will not cause the price to change that much. Some are confused because you were just told that the tax would be a new sales tax of roughly 23%. That is true. But currently due to our tax structure where all businesses pay taxes, and often in large amounts, those taxes are passed down already into the price of goods. You just don't see it. When a business provides the raw materials for a good, that business is taxed on its profits. The business that transports the goods to the company that makes it into a saleable item also pays taxes. The marketing firm that is paid to advertise the product is also paying taxes. And finally the store and company that you buy from as a consumer, also pays taxes. Those taxes are passed down to you as the customer. Why? Because the money companies use to pay those taxes are obviously from their constomers. So when all those taxes are eliminated, as they would be under the Fair Tax, prices would drop. Many economist believe roughly as much as 20-22%. Thus when the Fair tax is then placed on that good, the price will only go back up to where it was originally and maybe just slightly more. But hey remember earlier, you are making more money now and you are not paying income taxes, so you have more money to spend anyways.

Lastly: The tax is only on new items bought not old or used items. Thus since most working class people buy "Durable" items that are most often used, such as a house or car, they will not be paying taxes on it. It is the more wealthy that buy new things, they will pay the "Fair Tax".

This tax system is not regressive. It will help the poor in fact. There are concerns that I have for it. But those concerns are not NEAR the concerns I have with the current tax structure. Thus I can fully support this new tax structure. I would also support the Flat tax as well. But the current tax system, is a failure and is outdated... and quite frankly, should never have been started to begin with.

In Defense of Derek Dooley

In a shift away from the political or economic discussion, I'm going to give my take on Dooley and his football coaching staff in regards to what they should be doing with this team.

I'm one of the most passionate Tennessee Football fans I know. My Ringback tone is Rocky Top and my actual ringtone is John Ward saying "Its Football Time in Tennessee!" I read every News Sentinel article on the football and basketball team for that matter. I also have a subscription for GVX 247 to get up to the minute recruiting information and other deeper sports information than you can get from the main sports page of Knoxnews where they have to cover all sorts of other sports news. So some would say my passion might blind me from reality. No my passion is what brings to light the reality to me.

Our starting defense is composed of a DE that has have multiple knee surgeries and is not the same player he game to TN to be when he was much lighter and faster out of high school. The other DE is our "stud" pass rusher but can barely get to the QB because while he is our best, he was not recruited out of high school like many of the starting DE at the other SEC schools. I know because he is from the Chattanooga area. He was good and recruited, but not as a guy to come in day one and be a stud like many of the other DE in this league are. Our DTs include a guy who was suppose to play DE at a high level. The other kid from Catholic that I love everything about did not originally go to Tennessee to the the Starting DT as a sophomore. A guy like him is not suppose to start. And he came as an OL but was not good enough there so they moved him to DT where he was more needed. He is suppose to be the guy that plugs up the middle on early down plays when the starter is hurt or tired. The guy that was projected to start at DT-Nose Guard has been kicked off the team in Hughes. Their backups are also players that have converted from other positions or are also young.

Our LBs were suppose to be a stud from West TN in King, a stud from Virginia in Askew, and Herman Lathers. Instead the first two have done nothing like many of the other Kiffin recruited kids and the latter has a broken foot. Instead we have a guy who was a 3star RB that has converted to MLB and two Freshmen linebackers that are arguably our best Pro prospects on Defense. They are Freshmen none the less. We have Seniors who sometimes back up these guys and starts in Nickel situations only.

In our secondary, we were suppose to have Jackson the best player on the team, another stud who can't get into school in Lofton, and a stud at CB that was a trouble maker and was also kicked off a while ago in 5 star athlete Vinson. Instead our best CB is a converted WR. Our second best CB is having to play safety because our best player on the entire team got kicked off. We have a converted professional baseball player at the other safety position that had everyone excited because of the hits he puts on people. His cover skills are very low, and he is still trying to relearn how to play a sport he did not play for years before now. We have a JUCO guy competing with a Senior(Evans) who was at best suppose to be a pure backup if not third string CB when recruited as a 3star guy. We also have a who I do feel will be good one day but not good enough to play big minutes now in Coleman. Our back up safety is a Freshmen and our other CB is often a kid from Tennessee who is a great athlete but was not suppose to be a starter on a team that was suppose to have multiple studs who have been dismissed from the team.

That is out Defense. We have some really young guys who are suppose to be really good. We have had two Freshmen groups come in under Dooley in which many are making contributions and being productive players young in their careers which is a good sign. We have a good and could be great recruiting class coming in. This would be the second in a row that were really good but this one could be great. I have not even began to talk about our offense which is even YOUNGER if you could believe it. We have a new strength coach in his first year there to add strength to the team.

This team is not good. But we are not suppose to be good. We are suppose to be good next year. And maybe great the year after. If that does not happen, then I will begin to question this coaching staff. for Heaven's sake lets not try to judge Dooley and his staff now as if they are suppose to be wining this year.

We cannot stop the run because our DL is small and not deep. Our best DT this year is suppose to be a kid named Arthur Jeffery Jr. You recognize the name? No! Not unless you follow recruiting like I do. He can't get on the field. Our LBs are young and our DBs are not good yet because of the attrition. We can't blitz much because of the youth and therefore can't get pressure because our DL is not good enough to do it without help. Lets relax a bit. I can write a a column on the offense but it would sound the same. In fact we have been hurt more there possibly. Next year if we are not back on track as a top 25 team in the nation... then I will begin to question Dooley. But as a coach... its way too early with what team he took over. Lets wait until his recruiting classes can get up there.. Lets wait until way over half our team is not Freshmen and Sophomores and many of the other starters who are not young are 3 star guys that have not been kicked off the team or left already. Lets be patient. We said we would be... Lets follow through with that.

Companies Shipping Jobs overseas?

Its been a while since I have blogged due to school and golf. Thought I'd drop in and discuss something we did in class recently when I was evaluated by one of my Administrators.

I blogged about whether America still makes "stuff" anymore a few weeks ago. Today I will speak about something along the same lines. If you read that blog before this one you will understand that most factories and other manufacturing jobs that are lost in America are not lost due to companies shipping those jobs overseas for cheaper labor. Most are lost due to the progress in the realm of technology and thus productivity is much higher and we need fewer workers in manufacturing because of this. Kind of like the decline of farming that began years ago despite not having a drop in production due to the better technology.

Although this is true, companies still often DO ship jobs overseas due to cheaper labor. Should that happen? Should we allow it? Is it a good thing?

First the morality of the issue. We in America like to talk about hating some people's speech but honoring their right to say what they want because the Constitution says: Congress shall make no law... restricting free speech. Yet we often say that companies should not ship jobs overseas. Given the fact that a company is a free enterprise and independent company that is not owned by congress or any other government entity, is it moral to restrict their freedom to move anywhere? Would you force a person who wanted to move out of America to stay in America? North Korea does that, so does Cuba. I find it immoral to restrict a company from doing as they want to do in order to please their stockholders who own the company.

On a more economic note is it hurtful for our economy? The answer is no if that company is freely making this decision without government pressure or regulation forcing it to make a decision outside of the Free Market. Meaning unless crazy high taxation, or regulation, entitlements for workers, or some other unconstitutional force is forcing companies to make these decisions. If a company freely chooses to leave without these being the reasons, then this company sending jobs overseas is a good thing for the economy although hurtful for some workers.

If a business sends some jobs overseas it is in essence saying that those jobs are low skilled jobs that can be done by low paid low skilled workers in other countries that can thus more efficiently perform those tasks. When this happens, the companies keep their costs down and are more competitive in our economy. This allows them to keep prices lower than they would be if those jobs were kept here in America.

Now some would argue: But if those jobs are kept in America then that is more money and more jobs and thus that helps the economy. That is incorrect and believed by many people because they do not understand trade-offs. If inefficient jobs are kept in the country, this means more resources (IE: money) is used on this production which means fewer resources to be used on more efficient areas. In other words, the jobs saved by continuing to do something inefficient is dwarfed by the jobs that are lost, when those resources (IE: money) are not used in efficient ways. Let me close by giving you a local example:

Would you argue that Tennessee should save jobs by refusing to buy oranges from Florida or California in an effort to keep "Orange farms" around here in Tennessee? No one would argue for this because they would say: Those oranges can be made in Florida and California more cheaply thus saving Tennessee Consumers more money to spend in other areas that can put Tennesseans to work in more efficient areas. It works the same way when countries trade with each other. We just don't understand that and thus most Americans are not happy when companies send some work to be done overseas.

My take on the Debt Deal

I might in the future comment on this post to add/revise some of this information as I will be no doubt reading many articles written by economists that I follow. I confess, many of my ideas that I write about on here come from other people. Many ideas are mine. But most of my views are based in large part on the ideas and beliefs of those that I study. I add/revise them to fit my own belief system. But I study those other guys a lot. Now back to the current Debt Deal.

On surface I am against the compromise. To briefly sum up: Small rise in the Debt Ceiling for small cuts to spending up front to non-defense and non-entitlement areas. All these cuts will be cut over a period of probably 10 years. The debt ceiling rise is immediate. So truly these cuts are marginal at best. Then a committee is formed to determine what other cuts are possible and the President will be able to get another larger rise in the debt if the commission can come up with cuts that are agreed upon. If the committee cannot come up with cuts, automatic cuts take place. Most of these cuts(little more than 50%) will come from defense spending. Other cuts from entitlement programs. Its amazing that Defense gets the largest cut, when off all the major programs, Defense is one of the few Constitutional obligations our federal government actually has. The later vote on a balanced budget means nothing, Democrats will not support it.

The truth is drastic change is needed and needed fast. Our debt is a problem that is growing out of control. The public in America is far too weak to mustard up the courage to allow what needs to happen take place. Senior Citizens (on average the most wealthy amongst us) are too cowardly to accept cuts to their benefits. This, although the great majority of them will receive far more than they ever paid into the entitlement system. Thus, the wealthiest amongst us will be living off the tax dollars of the still working and less wealthy people. Go figure! I love our elders by the way. But lets not act as if they are not to blame for any of this. They were the voters during a time that America grew its government to Communist sizes and thus they deserve a large part of the blame.

There is only one segment of the government that will take the necessary steps needed to deal with the problem. And that segment is roughly 2/3 of 3/5 of 1/2 of 1 of the 3 branches of our federal government. Did you follow that? I am referring to the conservative and "tea" party side of the Republican Party. The tea party members of the Republican party only control the House of Representatives. This is 1/2 of the Legislative branch of our government. The Legislative branch is 1 of 3 branches of our federal government. And the Tea party/Conservatives make up probably just 66% of all Republicans who are true conservatives.

Thus there are 2 situations we have here:

1) On principal as a conservative Libertarian (somewhat in line with many tea party members) I am against this deal and any deal that as Senator Rand Paul says: "Does not balance the budget". To balance the budget would require massive cuts. We borrow about half of what our Federal government spends. I believe we need a non-violent revolution of government principled on Constitutional ideas. I'm glad that the compromise did not include tax raises. To raise taxes on people at this time is ignorant. You can read past blog entries to understand how taxes always end up being paid by consumers, most of which are not rich people. On principal I would vote against the plan despite this positive aspect of the deal. If I were in congress, I would vote against the plan. But I am glad that the deal got done. What you say? Well now for the 2 situation.

2) Our founding fathers set up a form of government that does not allow things to be done quickly. For good reason. It requires that a law be Constitutional (this of course has not stopped past laws from being passed but the courts are highly populated with anti-Constitutional Liberals). A bill has to be passed by both houses of Congress. Then has to be approved by the President. Elections only take place ever 2 years. And it takes 6 full years before each seat of congress has come up for election because Senators serve 6 year terms. Those with my principals again make up a very small part of that government. Therefore this deal might be the only thing that could have gotten done. So in conclusion:

Obey the rule of law and understand that just as it has taken 80 years, beginning with FDR mainly, to cause this problem, it will take years to reverse. In the 2012 elections, win the Presidency with someone like Rick Perry as President. Expand your control in the House and take the Senate by just enough seats this year. All these takeovers need to be done by conservative Republicans who will stand on good principal. Meaning not the same Republicans that were leading during the Bush Administration. If this takes place then serious reform can be accomplished.

Does America Make anything anymore?

One of the worries in America is the idea that we can no longer feed ourselves, cloth ourselves, or make things for ourselves. This is typically the fear when people are debating that America is becoming a service economy and no longer a manufacturing economy that makes anything. Lets keep in mind that over a hundred years ago, most families individually fed themselves and clothed themselves when everyone had a farm and most everyone sewed their own clothes. But today we do not have anxiety over the fact that most people have never farmed much of anything and very few people have ever clothed themselves one outfit much less all their clothes. We would not complain that our lives are worse today than then! But yet when America as a whole shifts jobs overseas, we all the sudden fear that we are headed down a path to destruction. Aside from the fact that that in itself is ridiculous... even those who disagree might be surprised to find out that their facts are wrong to begin with:

America makes more "stuff" than anyone today! According to a U.N study (and we know the U.N hates us, so trust me if this article makes us look good you know its the truth) American manufacturing output in 2009 was 2.15 trillion dollars (in 2005 dollars) compared to China's 1.48 trillion dollars. Yes! America manufactured more than China, the place everyone fears is taking our jobs. In fact America accounted for 20 percent of the entire world's manufacturing output. That is just one percent below the 1990 amount of 21%! Yes your math is correct, in a 20 year period of time, America's manufacturing as a percentage of the world's manufacturing, only dropped one percent.

In 2009, we manufactured more than Japan, Germany, Britain, and Italy combined. And we keep increasing our manufacturing! You say what? How can this be from everything I have heard? American manufacturing today has more than doubled since 1970.

It is true that we have lost millions of American manufacturing jobs. But this is not because all those jobs are moving overseas. This is because we have become so much more productive! Technology today allows the American worker to produce far more than the American worker of decades ago. Many decades ago young people could dream about working in the factory as opposed to farming jobs which were dropping off due to this same increase in productivity levels in agriculture. Today young people can dream about becoming doctors, nurses, lawyers, mechanics, teachers, architects, engineers, or many other jobs due to technological improvements in manufacturing.

Many speak of how everything they buy is "made in China"! That is often true. This is because China specializes in producing toys, shoes, sporting equipment and other low-tech, labor-intensive jobs. These products do not require the high tech and sophisticated factories of America.

In fact a large amount of "stuff" is made in the United States. Of course this is not usually the cheap inexpensive items you find on the shelf of your local wal-mart or target. America specializes in making things like: planes, air-conditioners, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and more. These are not on your weekly shopping list. Nor is this "stuff" you pick up off the shelf and can turn over and read where it was made.

The fact is, the cheap items we buy on the shelf of our stores should and are made in cheap labor countries. America prospers when we free up labor to do the high tech jobs by allowing other nations do the low-tech jobs. Are some workers hurt for a time in America? Absolutely. The farmer had a tough time making changes years ago when many of them lost their jobs. So did the blacksmiths and buggy makers when the automobile replaced horse and buggy. But was America worse off? No! Today the fighter jet maker, mechanic, doctor, nurse, engineer, lawyer, teacher, and more are replacing the factory worker. But as it was true a hundred years ago, we are better for it today!

*Much of this comes from author Jeff Jacoby