My biggest regret in life

*I have about 20 minutes to free hand this blog... I fear it will not do justice...

I usually blog on political/economic issues.  For you that read my blog, you know this to be true.  I often discuss controversial issues here as well that I believe are of great importance.  Today I was moved to tears in my apartment.  I was not trying to think upon regrets I have made in life.  But circumstances in my life made me think and dwell on this issue for a few minutes.

I have regrets everyone does and to say you have none is a cliche of dishonesty.  Only Jesus has lived a life on earth of no regret.  I have made decisions, made friends with people, had relationships with people, done things professionally, and been lazy at times and regret those things.  I regret not having more mental toughness and it causing me to have a shortened baseball career and deal with anxiety and insomnia at times.  Although am am thrilled to say that I experience far less of that now than before probably due to weight loss and being in the best shape of my life since my early twenties.  But no doubt those regrets are so small compared to the biggest regret of my life.

I probably spent more time with my Dad than 95% of children growing up.  We were together a lot especially during baseball season.  But the fact is today I am reaping some of the bad decisions I made in regards to not spending more QUALITY time with him.  My hot water heater went out yesterday.  I live in an apartment so maintenance took care of it.  I have a screen door that is messed up and a light in the kitchen that has wiring issues.  Luckily I live in an apartment complex and its an easy call to have it fixed.  As a child my dad was brilliant... well he still is.  He can work with wood, flooring, electrical work and his specialty area is with plumbing.  All qualities that allow a man to well be a man.  I want a family one day and to be honest, I've thought about that in the last few months more than normal for personal reasons.  But the reality is that I feel at times that I do not offer what it takes to be a good father.  I love kids and would be a good parent, but a good husband and father? I'm not sure.

My parents were and are awesome and did a good job raising me.  But to be a Man, to be a father, to be the Man of the house that I need and wish to be, required me to do a bit more when I was young.  And today I feel inadequate because I was not motivated to learn many of the things my dad tried to teach me.  Now don't get me wrong, he taught me a lot and I can do a little and I believe he did what he could to prepare me for manhood.  But the reality is that I could have went with him on jobs more, and when I went, if I had been more motivated I could have made that more quality time.  I feel that I would own a house if I was confident in the areas that my dad is brilliant in.  And I am to blame for not doing more to acquire that knowledge from him.

Today I feel my life is held back because of those decisions.  I regret it so much.  I have learned so much from my parents and can hardly point to a weakness of them.  But as a son I failed because I feel less of a man today because I did not take the time to trust him that I needed to know those skills.  Today I feel my life, personal, and professional are held back due to this regret.  I can't be the person I want to be to people because of my ignorance that is born out of being ignorant as a young man and not wanting to spend more time with my dad.

As a coach and teacher I try to tell my kids that one of the most important things you can learn at a young age is how IGNORANT you are.  Some think that might bash a persons self-esteem.  Well maybe.  But ignorance abounds in all of us.  And the fact is if my students and players can have their self-esteem in check at this age that's better than having regrets later in life.  I have to persuade them to trust me that the material I go over will come in "handy" and be helpful to you in the future even if you don't care about it now.  Players who choose not to work on their game in the off-season will regret it when they can't hit a game winning shot late in the game and miss out on a chance to reach their full potential as a player and team.  But most kids are too ignorant to really fully buy into that.  And that sometimes angers or annoys me.

But days like today remind me that I was once there.  And at a young age we feel like we have so many answers and this or that is not important.  Well I love my dad and am so thankful that he forced me to work with him some and learn some of those skills.  But I so regret not desiring to spend more quality time with him so that I can be a better man today.  So many things have happened to me, well actually I feel that so many great things have NOT been able to happen to me lately because I can't provide the type of qualities that my dad had and that I could have gotten from him if I had realized how ignorant I was and important those qualities were to learn at that age.

Young people especially, spend as much time with leaders and mentors of your life as you can.  Admitting you are ignorant today might hurt your self-esteem a bit.  But that is better than to live life with regrets that were so easily avoidable back then.

The Truly Unfortunate Legacy of Slavery and Racism in American History

For years people have debated the impact that history can have on current events in our land.  The unfortunate reality is that many of our problems today exist not directly due to the history of slavery and racism in our nation but due to the guilt associated with those tragedies that causes Americans to turn their head away from many of the unfortunate circumstances we face today.  

The recent verdict in the Zimmerman trial is a case in point.  Regardless of whether you believe the jury got it right or wrong, there is a bigger more devastating picture that this trial paints for us.  Not to belittle the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, but thousands of more deaths occur yearly due to the atmosphere that exists in relation to this Murder case and many other crimes.  This atmosphere is created by the media that is more about ratings and feeding their political leans than they are reporting hard news.    

According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, 7000 African Americans (I will use "blacks" for the remainder of this blog entry) are murdered every year.  Furthermore between the years 1976 and 2011 there were 279,384 murders of black people.  The amazing statistic that would surprise anyone who watches the news in our country is that 94% of those crimes are committed by other BLACK people.  Blacks account for 50% of the homicide victims in this country although they account for only 13% of the overall population.  

Here are a couple other statistics: 

According to a Tuskegee Institute study, between the years 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites. Black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (8,197) come to 18,515, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home.

T. Willard Fair, president of the Urban League of Greater Miami, [put it best when he] told The Daily Caller that "the outrage should be about us killing each other, about black-on-black crime." He asked rhetorically, "Wouldn't you think to have 41 people shot (in Chicago) between Friday morning and Monday morning would be much more newsworthy and deserve much more outrage?"  Fair was referring to the news coverage of the Trayvon Martin death.  

Another tragedy is that there is little to no coverage of Black on White crime in the news media despite the continuous coverage of this case and others that involves white on black crime if you want to considered Mr. Zimmerman white to begin with.  I will give one example only though:

Columnist Walter Williams pointed out that two Virginian-Pilot newspaper reporters driving through Norfolk were beaten up by a mob of young blacks.  They had to miss a weeks worth of work due to injuries.  This story was not even covered by their own newspaper.  Thomas Sowell gives even more examples here:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/05/15/a_censored_race_war

You can also get Pat Buchanan's take on it here:

http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2013/07/26/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism-n1644184

 

Some of you might read this article and call me a racist.  The reality is that I love all people.  And my favorite and most often read columnists in the world are two African Americans that I mention in this story.  Some of my favorite people at my school happen to be black and I personally only know 3 or 4 black kids in the entire school (of course in my defense there is no more than twice that many in the entire school).  The unfortunate thing is that many are afraid to talk, write, discuss, debate, or lecture on this issue because of either white guilt or the perception that due to our racist past we must assume that racism is still raging throughout our great country and we must first blame racism for every tragedy that involves a black person or that second, we cannot speak out of some of the cultural struggles today in black society because it might come off as racist.  

The type of violence that I have just listed and the statistics at the beginning of this blog entry were far less prevalent in the 1950's according to Dr. Thomas Sowell.  And poverty and discrimination were far worse then than it is today.  It is apparent that poverty and racism cannot be the cause of what we see today in the black community.

  

This is a difficult blog entry to write as a school teacher because of the controversial issue that it covers.  The unfortunate legacy of slavery and racism in American History is that as a society we still use those tragedies to justify not covering and not criticizing problems that obviously exist in our culture.  All races and all people have their problems.  We must deal with them head on.  There are many reasons for this uptick in violence among black people whose victims are often and probably most of the time completely innocent wonderful people.  One of the main reasons is the legacy that has been left behind due to our history.  A legacy that continues today.  This legacy is one of dishonesty when reporting news and discussing issues that involve those distant decedents of victims of our past failures and Sins as a nation.  

Transformation

Most of you that would ever read my blog know that I have had a recent transformation.  Physically I am in the best shape of my life since I was probably in my third year in college.  Here is how:

I have lost to this point 84 pounds since around August.  My goal is 100 by August and 110 by September.  To do this I have had to make a ton of changes but those changes were not as hard as many would think.

Nothing is as hard when you have motivation.  I have had a lot of support from new friends and one in particular in the last year.  I love them all so much.  I have been inspired and motivated for many reasons that I will not go into but the reality is just as my brother Brad Raby mentioned in church a couple weekends ago, motivation is so important.  You who want to and are trying to lose weight... find friends and close love ones that will hold you accountable.  And not just other people who need to lose weight as well.  But others who are already fit.  Others who are experienced and already know how to do it.  And make sure they are people that don't let you slack off much.  In other words family might not be best.  Even old friends are not best.  new friends.  Friends you really like and want to impress and know that will hold you accountable.

Start off knowing that it will be hard for the first month but that if you stick to it for a month it will get easier thereafter.  All things are harder at first.  But if you do the right thing you will add motivation along the way.  I noticed my body changing after a month and that added motivation.  After two months change was obvious and after 3 or 4 people around me started to ask.  And as obvious from a recent picture that I have posted change has really taken place the last couple of months.

Don't change your diet change your lifestyle.  Diets die out.  You need to count calories.  More out than in.  Scientifically figure out how many calories you can have a day and go with that.  Don't try to cut out certain foods.  Cut down calories that will help you decide what to cut out.  What you value.  The reality is that I enjoy fun from time to time.  I cut out soft drinks.. Not because of the sugar but because I value other foods more.  I still eat desserts but I eat a certain quantity and do not over eat as often.  I eat a better breakfast to save calories for later in the day.  I eat slower during the day so that I feel more full and have calories left over for the evening.  I use my phone app to count calories.  myfitnesspal.com  It works wonders

Mix up your workouts.  I started off riding my indoor bike.  Its funny I would ride my bike and after so many calories I would allow myself to read a Tennessee Sports article on Govols247 a recruiting and tennessee sports site that I am a member of.  From there I went to walking and some p90x.  Then I started kickboxing locally at a great place.  Now I am part of a gym where I run on the treadmill and lift weights.  I have a local neighborhood I run at and when I want to run longer distances that are flat I do so on a big road that has a good sidewalk.  The point is I don't bore myself.  Mix it up a bit.  Muscle confusion.

Most important of all these is the first.  I have had support from my family but I'm not around my family.  I have some close people to me here in Crossville that have really helped me.  I cherish this help.  Without it I would not have done this and would not continue to do it.  Find some accountability partners guys find some people to do this with you.  Find some motivation!  That's what people need.

Thanks to all who have helped.  You know who you are... Love you!!

PS This will continue... Live Long

The Folly of Franklin Roosevelt and the Myth about the Great Depression

If you read any list of greatest presidents in American history you will almost surely find Franklin D. Roosevelt on that list.  In part because of what he did during the World War II Crisis.  But also due to guiding us through the Great Depression.  The reality is that he did not guide us THROUGH the Great Depression but is one of the main reasons we have what we will forever call "The Great Depression."

The information that you will see in this blog comes from Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams from various articles and the book "The Housing Boom and Bust."

Almost every person in America knows of the Great Depression.  We study it in school.  In fact the American History class that I teach has three major sections covering the stock market crash, the Great Depression, and the New Deal.  All three sections are focused on the time period of the late 20's and 30's and even early 40's during a time that we call The Great Depression.  For many years FDR was given credit for ending it with the New Deal.  Then many said that WWII ended it but FDR's New Deal actually kept things from getting worse.  But many modern economist of the last 30 years are now often blaming FDR's New Deal for having caused much of the Great Depression or at the least prolonging its demise to our nation.  Lets look into it a bit.

The huge stock market crash of 1929 has for years been considered the cause of the massive unemployment of the 1930's, the period we refer to as the Great Depression.  Unemployment was as high as 25 percent in 1933 and the annual rate remained above 20 percent for four consecutive years 1932 to 1935.  Thousands of banks failed and stock prices fell to a fraction of their peaks in 1929.  For two consecutive years, American corporations as a whole operated in the red(Sowell).  Foreclosures of homes and especially farms followed and many people had to live in what we term shanty towns that were nicknamed "Hoovervilles" after the president of the time, Herbert Hoover.

His successor was Roosevelt who is regarded as the man that guided us out of the Great Depression.  Roosevelt understood the need for the federal government to get involved with disasters like this that were caused by the free market of capitalism and correct the problem.  But this picture or belief has again, recently been challenged by economists although historians, often primarily liberal and in love with FDR are reluctant to revise their history.

Here are the facts, Two months after the stock market crashed in October, unemployment rose and peaked at 9 percent and then began to gradually decline over the next several months all the way down to 6.3 percent by June of 1930.  Then in June of 1930, Herbert Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs which raised taxes on imports to their highest in history.  This was an effort to reduce imports and increase domestic production and exports to preserve American jobs.  In November of 1930, unemployment reached double digits for the first time in the decade at 11.6 percent.  Unemployment began to rise after the federal government got involved.  It was more than a year after the stock market had crashed.  In fact after two months unemployment had peaked and began to fall until the  tariff bill was passed into law.  Not all of this was due to the tariff laws though.  Lets look deeper into it.

FDR as president involved the federal government even more so.  He passed laws like the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which controlled prices and wages in industry.  The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 established federal control over prices and output in agriculture.  The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 mandated employers to negotiate wages and working conditions with labor unions.  FDR also took us off the gold standard and issued thousands of executive orders.

"During the first year of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, he called for increasing federal spending to $10 billion while revenues were only $3 billion. Between 1933 and 1936, government expenditures rose by more than 83 percent. Federal debt skyrocketed by 73 percent. Roosevelt signed off on legislation that raised the top income tax rate to 79 percent and then later to 90 percent. Hillsdale College economics historian and professor Burt Folsom, author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?", notes that in 1941, Roosevelt even proposed a 99.5 percent marginal tax rate on all incomes more than $100,000. When a top adviser questioned the idea, Roosevelt replied, "Why not?""  

In the five months leading up to the passage of the National Recovery Act, signs of recovery were evident in our economy.  Factory employment was up 23% and payrolls altogether were up 35%.  Then the law was passed and what was the result of raising wages and shortening work hours?  In the six months after the law was passed, industrial production dropped some 25 percent according to economist Dr. Walter Williams.  Even more interesting is that the Supreme Court eventually ruled this law unconstitutional.  Unemployment then fell to 14 percent in 1936 and even lower by 1937.

Roosevelt had more ideas such as the Wagner Act also known as the National Labor Relations Act.  This law was to improve the power of Labor Unions to help workers in the workplace.

In 1938, Roosevelt's New Deal produced the nation's first depression within a depression. The stock market crashed again, losing nearly 50 percent of its value between August 1937 and March 1938, and unemployment climbed back to 20 percent.  -Williams

Roosevelt was not hated though.  The chief Nazi paper at the time bragged on his policies.  Roosevelt even considered the dictator Benito Mussolini as an "admirable" man whom he was impressed with and had accomplished.

FDR's very own treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, saw the folly of the New Deal, writing: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!"

The reality is that what was a four year sharp downturn was extended to a 16 year depression due to destructive policies of Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda.

Roosevelt's administration created unpredictable interventions in the economy and businesses were impeded due to the federal involvement in the economy that caused uncertainty.  Business investments remained unusually low during the New Deal era.  While the government was becoming more involved, one financial historian said that throughout the 1930's "the amount banks lent for each dollar of reserved remained at about half the level of the 1920's."  Unemployment remained at double digits for the entirety of Roosevelt's first two terms in office despite much economic and statistical analysis that concluded that government policies in the 1930's prolonged the depression by several years.

The stock market crashed again in 1987 in a similar way to that in 1929.  Unlike Hoover and Roosevelt, Reagan did little to intervene in 1987 despite media criticisms of his inaction.  The result was that the economy had to recover on its own.  This led to what the British magazine The Economist later called 20 years of a combination of steady growth and low inflation.  Two sharp downturns in the early 1920's were allowed to recover on their own as well and quickly did so. Remember the nickname of the 1920's?  "The Roaring Twenties".   

There is much more information available to describe the impact of the New Deal and statistics as far is how the economy reacted when laws were passed or repelled.  Unfortunately our education system is mostly ran by big government.  And any history that belittles or speaks of the weaknesses of big government might lend to a desire for reduced government involvement in our lives today.

FDR was one of the worst presidents in history domestically.  I for one history teacher will speak of his strengths and weaknesses and allow others to develop their own opinions based on all sides of the history story.  The Great Depression was truly caused by massive government failure that this blog only touches the surface of.  I hope this opens the eyes of many readers who often buy into the belief that since so many people say it, it must be true that Roosevelt was a great president.  I find it hard to believe anyone that was bragged on by two Fascist leaders could truly be that great.

Last four months of my life

A lot has changed in my life recently.  Mainly my looks.  For the last decade of my life I have had a weight issue.  That's what it is.  The quickest way to start losing weight is to admit that you are in trouble.  I was in trouble.  Health still good overall but I was at a point where I knew change was needed now not later.

I have lost as of Saturday morning January 19, 66 pounds.  I would not like to lose about 34 more pounds.  I have learned a couple things through the process that I want to mention here in this post.

First, a person has to be motivated intrinsically to get much done in their life.  External motivation is good but true motivation comes from within.  As a coach I expect a lot from my players.  How can I expect so much from them if I do not expect a lot from myself.  I wanted to fix myself so that I could stop being a hypocrite.  I was motivated to lose weight so that I could feel better about myself as well.  A person can forget what they are missing if they have not experienced it in a long time.  I feel so much better now.  I had forgotten what this felt like.  I'm not there yet don't get me wrong.  Still a long ways to go.  But I feel so much better now.  A friend has told me: "no food taste as good as skinny feels".  Or something like that.  And that is true.

Second, stop acting like you don't need help in your life.  So many people think they are strong enough to not need help from others.  They think that is a sign of weakness.  In this life you need community.  I have that.  My mom is working hard now to lose weight as well.  That is motivation.  I have a head coach who is in great shape and motivates me and he does not even know that.  Even comments from people on the outside about how I use to look has motivated me.  I have heard those comments before but the combination of factors motivated me.  Biggest of all is that I have met people in my life recently that have changed it.  I have good people in my life that motivate me to lose weight but have also shown me how to.  My brother first introduced me to an app on my phone.  I finally downloaded it when a local friend also showed me how it works.  My life has changed because of people.  I have learned to cook.  I'm not bad at it.  I have been shown healthy food that is good for you.  My life is better now thanks to people.  I will never be able to thank them enough.

I am a Radical... You should be one too

This week I have been bombarded, in a good way, with discussion, debate, conversation and many other vices that have centered on the idea of being a “radical”.  Discussion that revolves around whether bipartisanism is important or whether a person is too extreme and should not fight for what they believe.  I have had class discussions in history class about how people are offended or feel like a person should not try to convince them of their ideology.  A mindset of “to each their own”.  That is one of the most ludicrous statements I think I have ever heard.

The idea that a good Christian is one that would never try to persuade another human of their faith is contradictory to even being a Christian in the first place.  The call of Christians is to tell others about Christ.  Even aside from religion, if one has an opinion or ideology or a viewpoint, that person should be led to try and get others to see things that way as well. 

Readers, we should all be Radicals in life.  A radical for what we believe in is the way to be.  What is the point of being Luke warm?  I am a radical and proud of that stance.  I believe with a strong passion and desire for things to be done the way I view them.  I want our country to elect a man to office that has my exact views.  That will never happen unless I’m President. 

There should be no such thing as a moderate.  We hear this idea that we need more moderates and that the extreme right and left are destroying our political democratic process.  Readers let me be the first to tell you that a moderate is someone who is unsure of themselves.  A moderate is someone who might not even have an opinion on an issue.  If you vote for President Obama, you are a radical who believes in what you believe.  And that is likely large government in our lives.  No moderate would vote for this President.  If you vote for Mitt Romney you are a radical in what you believe.  We should all be Radicals. 

There are people out there that believe that a person who believes that a child’s life begins before delivery in the hospital room or wherever it might be, and thus is against abortion is a Radical.  Well great.  That person should be a radical.  They should radically stand by that decision and belief.  But don’t act like you are a “moderate” person for believing that a woman should have a choice on what to do with that child or “her body”.  If you view it that way you are too a radical.  We are both radicals. 

I have arguments with people that believe they are right because they are in the middle.  That makes no sense to me.  No one in the middle will ever sway my opinion on anything.  If you do not have conviction of your beliefs and passion for it then you will never impact anyone.  I have passion for economic principals.  I believe that the Tea Party is radical.  Not in a bad way like the media and those on the left want you to believe.  They are radicals because they are passionate about what they stand for.  What they stand for is not extreme.  They believe that the size and scope of government has gotten way too big.  If that is radical than I’m a radical and proud of it. 

Strive to be radical readers.  Stop believing this nonsense that the far right and the far left is destroying the nation.  That we need common ground to fix this nation.  Ladies and Gentlemen, the lasting domestic legacies of former President George W. Bush that people hate are where he compromised.  He made everyone unhappy.  No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Program, McCain-Feingold, Immigration policy.  No one was happy because he camped out in the middle.  Even on tax issues he cut taxes sure.  But he did it in a “moderate” way.  He should have reformed the tax code instead.  He should have been a radical!! 

Readers stand firm.  Have debate.  Try to convince people of your sides.  And never argue against someone because they are a “Radical” and therefore their views are too extreme to be used.  Our founders were radical.  Karl Marx was a radical.  Adam Smith was a radical.  So what!  The question is not whether they are radical or not… it’s who is right? I am passionate that I am right.  And until I die I will try to convince others of my views and my ways.  I will do it respectfully but with passion and energy.  I am a radical and I am proud of it.  You should be too.   

Why I care more

How can we not have the FDA?  They check our food to make sure it is not contaminated.  They are to make sure that our drugs are safe for the marketplace to be sold to consumers.  Anyone for ending the FDA has to be evil as they apparently do not care about protecting a person's health just like us terrible guys do not care for women's health by arguing that I should not be forced to pay for her birth control.

But what if I said that I care too much for our health to be willing to keep the FDA around.  I mean lets look at some of the situations that are created with the FDA.

Can the government be sued for messing up when it comes to regulating and inspecting drugs?  Are government employees often fired for bring poor at their jobs?  The answer to each of these is a NO!  Because of this we get the worst of both worlds.  An FDA that is very slow to approve drugs on the market because there is no incentive for them to approve a drug that can help people unless its very very safe because they are not going to make a profit by approving the drug anyways.  But at the same time they will not be sued or fired often for approving a drug or not inspecting food thorough enough.

If the FDA was demolished, then a private insurance company would have to back up a drug company or food company and their product.  That insurance company is in it to make money so you very well better believe that they will make sure food is not contaminated.  They do not want lawsuits so they will get these things right way more often than wrong because the risk of being wrong is being sued in court, having profitable contracts voided, being fired as an employee, or going out of business altogether due to not doing a satisfactory job.

At the same time, there is an incentive to approve drugs to the market that would allow doctors and patients to make more decisions for themselves.  Insurance companies can say that this drug has a high risk and thus to insure it we charge much more.  But drug companies want to approve drugs because that will make the companies more profitable and make them more money as well insuring more drugs.  Thus good drugs that have side effects but can still be helpful despite those side effects will be approved more often than they are by the current FDA.

Many people want to act like Libertarians do not care about people because we want to get rid of rent control laws, minimum wage laws, regulations, the FDA, OSHA, and other things... But in reality... we want to get rid of many of those things because we care MORE than others.  Its like if I'm against some kind of government law or oversight than that means someone else cares and I do not.  But as a libertarian I look at the incentives of laws and the consequences and base my opinions and views there not based on the nation that we need protection from everything.  I care more so I put more time into studying the results than someone who supports simple government protection.

Unfortunately Libertarians are not winning the argument on this because so many of them want to focus on things like legalizing gay marriage, pot, getting our military behind our boarders only, and abortion "rights".  Thus they alienate so many and in fact more often than not the base that usually supports their economic ideas, the conservatives, and thus little is accomplished.  Hopefully younger conservative libertarians like myself will change this and can shrink government.

Gas Prices

Just a quick blog entry today...

Watching a news show that did a segment on gas prices sparked my interest in a new debate that is anti-oil companies and their effect on gas prices.

No industry is probably attacked in our "capitalistic" economy more than oil companies.  There is a new argument used to blame them for the high gas prices that has recently been in the news due to what is happening in California.

The new argument is that these companies are exporting too much gasoline to other countries that are buying it and thus lowering the local supply of gasoline here in America, and driving prices higher here in America.  Now that impact on the actual price here in America is very minimum anyways but lets go with this argument and entertain the thought.

What are we to do?  Tell "big oil" to not sell their gasoline to the best buyer willing to offer the best price.  Are we to expect oil companies to do the "patriotic" thing and turn down foreign buyers in order to supply more gasoline here in America?  The reality is that global demand is outpacing the global supply and this drives prices up.  If our oil companies were to do normal business they would sell this gasoline to the best buyer.  I would argue that if they chose to keep that gasoline here, the supply in other countries would go down, thus driving up global OIL prices and thus it would end up costing more to purchase oil and possibly offset the lowering price of gasoline if oil companies were to keep that gas here.

The other argument is that the government should get involved and force oil companies to keep that here or to somehow maybe restrict or tax those exports in a way that would punish oil companies for doing that.  But do you really expect other countries to not react?  If you believe that our wonderful government can restrict our products from going abroad and do this without other countries responded by restricting goods coming here then you are drinking the cool-aid.  This would of course hurt our economy in other areas where other countries pass restrictions against America.

I have blogged on a more long term solution in the past.  But this is a new argument that is designed to demagogue oil companies once again.  I just wanted to let you know... its not nearly that simple.  Read those past blogs to understand more about how to get gas prices down.

The Clinton Impact on the Election

The most moving and probably surprising speech of the RNC and DNC conventions was in my humble opinion the speech given by Ann Romney.  She talked about a side of her husband that very few people see.  It allowed voters the ability to relate to Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

The speech by Sandra Flucke at the DNC was depressing and embarrassing in my opinion.  Filled with lies and distortions and a passion not truly about women's health but a passion for tyranny that would force people to pay for birth control of women does not move me.  I understand that Birth Control is about more than just being able to have sexual intercourse and almost eliminate the possibility of pregnancy.  I understand that many ladies take it to help their hormones and even recently I have heard it can help acne.  There might be some validity to its effect on cancer.  But the idea that a private business should be forced to pay for birth control if they wish not to is just not mainstream.  its Radical.  I'm not against birth control and I'm sure I pay for it since I have health insurance through the state of TN.  But I have an issue with FORCING a private institute to do so.  As a Conservative Libertarian that just goes way too far.

But the speech that might have the most impact was entirely too long but delivered beautifully.  That was the speech given by Bill Clinton.  Clinton is a terrific speaker and can explain pretty complicated issues to regular Americans who do not spend a great portion of their life studying the issues he talks about.  But I want to point out something that very few people know about.  This information has been researched and recently I read an article on Forbes magazine that uses that research that gave me the idea to blog about it.

Clinton and others who support the President and want to increase taxes on the "rich" do so out of a desire for "fairness" and to help pay off the debt.  I have mentioned many times that increased taxes on the rich will make a minimum impact on the actual debt which is a spending issue.  I have also spoken on the "fairness" issue and how the rich already pay most all the federal income taxes in this country.  But the argument that many use against raising taxes is that it can hurt the economy.  Raising taxes will slow growth.  That argument, which I make daily, is often argued against by referencing the successful economic times under the most popular living president, President Bill Clinton.  But what is interesting is that the understanding of what happened under Clinton is so often misunderstood.

No doubt the 90's were a prosperous time in America.  No doubt Clinton did some good things while President.  And I would like to have him back as compared to the current president.  But lets look at the facts:

"The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars).  In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes." -Forbes

These taxes though were met with a 1994 election that brought a major change to congress with the Republicans gaining control under the leadership of Newt Gingrich. I'ms sure there were other circumstances that led to this but even Clinton apparently has said he felt that he increased taxes too much.  .

During the first four years of Clinton's presidency the economy grew but not at an alarming impressive rate.  people were being employed at about 2 million a year but wages were growing very slowly as well and even with inflation in check, GDP was growing at about 3%.  Not real strong considering we had just left a recession.  But these numbers are not bad and we would enjoy them now.  But here is the interesting part.

In 1995 Clinton changed his view on taxes apparently.  Welfare reform took place, We reduced tariffs and other barriers to free trade with NAFTA.  In 1997 Capital Gain taxes were lowered by 8 percent.  He also exempted more people from the, in my opinion immoral, death tax.  Government spending was slowed.  And a strong dollar policy kept inflation low, which in essence is like a tax break in that we have more money left to spend in other areas.  What were the results:

GDP increased by a full percentage point to over 4% a year between 1996 and 2000.  Unemployment fell to 4%.  Real wages increased much faster, the S&P increased by 78%, Revenues to the federal government increased.

The point here is that there was significant prosperity under the Clinton Administration.  But most of that prosperity came later in his tenure when his policies more favored that of the congress.  Those policies are far different than President Obama's.  It is impossible to compare the two eras.  Understand that a technological boom and other things that came together in the 90's would have led to economic growth almost no matter what.  That is why I do not compare the times very often.  But given that former President Bill Clinton's speech in which be bragged about what he did, although much of that was forced by congress, will likely have a large impact on a large segment of the population, I wanted to mention this to a few voters... those of you who read my blog.

Thanks,

Raby

Top Down Economic Policies

It amazes me how confused people get when discussing economics.  I would not be amazed if they were confused as to how the elasticity of demand is one of the most important things for companies to understand when deciding the marginal product they want to supply.  That's confusing and I do not know all that goes into that.  But understanding the media frenzy that is covering this so called "top down" economic approach should be much easier.

The Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney, I believe wants to reduce all marginal tax rates by roughly 20%.  He also wants to eliminate enough loop holes and cut spending enough to make this change deficit neutral.  Eliminating loop holes meaning the deductions that many companies take advantage of in order to get around paying taxes.

Obviously since the rich and upper class citizens pay the most taxes and the highest marginal tax rates already, they will receive the largest tax cut.  When the poorest 50% of Americans pay around 3% of the taxes, how can you give that group a comparable tax cut anyways?  The fact is when it comes to Federal Income Taxes, the rich pay the most of the taxes by far.  Thus they will receive the largest tax cut.  That should be simple to understand.

Furthermore, cutting taxes for those making over $250,000 a yr in income/profit will cut taxes for the most important among us.  That is the larger of the "small businesses" in our society.  These companies are responsible for most of the jobs that are lost or created in our nation.  These companies usually file their taxes under individual taxed income and thus to reduce their taxes you have to cut taxes on the very rich.  Why do this?  If you cut taxes on people who create jobs and produce goods, they will be willing to produce more and thus hire more workers.  It allows them to invest more money to expand their business which is what we need right now with unemployment at 8.2% and the real unemployment being much higher than that when you calculate those who have stopped looking for a job because of discouragement or have taken a part time job for the moment.

The purpose of taxation is to raise money for the government to provide services.  The best way to do this is by raising money without impeding the economy.  That is what Mitt Romney wants to do.  Or at least that is what he says.  Forget about politicians for a moment.  That is what I and other people who understand economics wants.

Those who are against the "top down" approach are people who do not see taxation this way.  They see taxation as a way to more equally redistribute wealth.  To take from those who are the richest and most successful to help those less fortunate.  That sounds good even if it is immoral from a liberty standpoint.  But even if you think its benefits outweigh the costs when it comes to the morality argument, how about the economic argument?  If you tax the rich and the businesses who hire people and the economy continues to slowly progress or even go back into another recession, millions of more people will be negatively affected for many more years than would have benefited short term by the benefits of receiving government assistance through higher taxation.

I for one want to use taxation the way it needs to be.  Raise money for the federal government to do what the Constitution allows it to do while not impeding the economy from being a well oiled wealth creating machine!

Where did the time go part II

Personally I am doing really well right now.  I have recently lost some weight and would like to continue this. Such an important part of my life.  The motivation is coming from all over the place.  But most importantly I want to get or stay healthy.

I am still single but I go out and date I guess you could say.  This might be one of the motivating factors of me wanting to lose weight.  I have been seeing some people more regularly but nothing serious.  They are all more attractive than me so maybe that is why I need to lose more weight... haha

As a strong big tough guy I'd like to say I'm always strong but the truth is I have many weaknesses.  I live alone now and often get lonely.  Not that depressed lonely but I have almost always lived with someone.  I moved out of home as a Freshmen in college playing a little baseball and have not moved back home but for one year since.  But I have always lived with my future best man and younger brother or one of my best friends.  So this is different.  Humans are designed to be social.  And I'm a very social person.  Nothing wrong with admitting when you get lonely from time to time.

I deal with anxiety sometimes.  That is embarrassing to admit.  I really have little to get anxious about.  I have a good life as it is right now.  I have a good job and I'm doing what I love.  I am in good health.  But I worry about that.  I have never been one to get sick hardly ever in fact and have had very very little health issues in the past.  But I still worry about that from time to time and that is probably one of the motivating factors with wanting to get into shape.

Most importantly is someone's spiritual life.  I can tell you right now that I do not stack up to my family.  I have two of the most God loving brothers in the world.  That is not a joke.  I have another brother that is married and seems to have kind of rededicated himself spiritually and a sister that has had life change recently and is also on fire for Christ.  My parents are as well and possible motivated by recent changes in our lives attending one of the greatest churches in east Tennessee at Northstar Church.

I personally am battling things and need to be better.  Prayer is needed.  I have been a Sunday Christian for a while now.  Don't get me wrong I still witness some and talk about Christ.  But I do not live it like I use to. I need to work on that as much as anything in life.

My church and family are awesome.  Personally I'm in such a great position in life.  My lifestyle has changed recently with exercise and eating right and trying to get in the scripture.  I have a long ways to go.  I guess until I die I will have to work on it.

I love America as well and will continue to blog and talk about politics and economics in our society.  Which is what I will begin doing once again with my next blog entry.

Where did the time go?

By my account it has been since February that I have blogged.  I apologize to those of you that occasionally read my blog for political commentary and other things.  I am ashamed that I have not prioritized this as much as I should have.  I will most likely bring some more political commentary with an emphasis on the economics of some current events and the upcoming presidential election in the near future.  But today lets get caught back up.

My life has changed a lot since I last blogged.  That has been like a 1/2 year so that is to go expected.  I still teach at Stone Memorial High School and love it.  Some things have changed.

I no longer teach Economics! Not happy about that but there is no economics offered at my school now.  I do not like nor agree with that decision.  I won't bore you with why it has been dropped.  Instead i am teaching U.S. History.  Not just any history but the Advanced Placement and Honors History courses.  Kind of excited about this considering I get the brightest of students.  But doing AP things is a little nerve wracking.  In fact doing this, golf, basketball, and baseball as well as PA responsibilities will keep me busy the next 10 months I'm sure.

I no longer coach girls basketball.  I will miss those girls.  I think from a Junior Varsity/Freshmen standpoint we have two of the most if not the most successful seasons ever at SMHS.  I had a small part in that but the players of course had the largest impact there.  My coaching style was not always appreciated by all.  That is to be expected in high school.  Coaching girls is also different.  I'm sure I will blog about this alone in the future about why I treat girls and guys very much the same on the court and in the classroom.  For the most part, I feel that I was appreciated and well liked by most all the girls and parents.  

After going to the Semi-finals in the TSSAA state tournament, the head coaching position opened up this past off-season and I applied for it.  I did not get the head coaching position.  Why? Well probably a lack of support from some.  I'm not too upset about it now but those reasons are the human reasons that "I" see.  But as a human "I" am very limited as to what I can see.  My relationship with God needs much work but I know he still guides me and loves me and the reason I did not get it is simple... God did not want that for me.

That is hard to accept because a head coach is what I want to be.  But to be honest I'm much better off now.  I am Neil Capps' assistant with the boy's basketball team.  Coach Capps has as much integrity as anyone in Crossville in my opinion.  In the summer that I worked with them I have changed the way I would have ran a practice prob by nearly 20%.  That means I have learned a ton in such a short time.  I'm learning from him and he learned from one of the best college coaches around and one of the best high school coaches around in Coach Buck.  I am now better prepared to be a head coach by far just a few months after I would cry and whine about not getting the girls head job.  How foolish huh?  I still have some disappointment about it but I am very much at peace in what I'm doing now.

For the record.. the guy they hired... Coach Walker... was an excellent choice.  I'd say people in authority would be impressed with the way me and him are already becoming good friends.  Some might have feared that I would have butt heads with whoever they brought in.  That is just part of my job though and stupid anyways.  Why in the world would I hold anything against the new coach?  There is nothing to be impressed with there.  People need to be professional in their lives and not be excited when someone does what they are suppose to do.  We have a great relationship and is fun to work with.  I hope he does well.

I'll cover more personal/spiritual things in my next blog which I plan to post sooner than the next half year.

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

ignorance needed to pass an agenda

Politicians, mostly Democrats these days push for policies (their agenda) by using talking points that are easily proven wrong with just a smidgen of evidence. Lets look at it...

Those who favor larger government control over our lives often try to discredit our founding fathers by misrepresenting some of their Constitutional ideas. One of the most often misrepresentations used is the three-fifths compromise. Rhetoric such as: "They only counted black people as 3/5 a person!" "How can we listen to these people when they considered my people (this is said by a Black American liberal) 3/5 a person?!"

Politicians are often pretty intelligent people. They know what the 3/5 compromise really was. But that means nothing to them when they are trying to push an agenda through. But with a public that is as undereducated as our public is, its easy to see why they choose to speak in talking points and not reality. Even some of my readers might not be able to defend this example. The three-fifths compromise counted slaves as 3/5 a person when counting for the House of Representatives and for the electoral college. IN other words, if slaves were counted as a whole person for these considerations, it would have made the southern slave states even stronger politically. This would have in effect hurt the African American at the time.

Tax cuts for the rich is another issue. What is rich? Some say its an income of $250,000 a year or more. But many small businesses that just get by file taxes under individual income. If their company has revenue of just over $250,000 they might be taxed at that top income bracket percentage. Thus to lower taxes for small businesses would require you to lower the tax rate on the highest income tax bracket. Politicians know this. But they public often does not.

These are also the people that hire individuals. So do corporations. The fact is, lowering these taxes often allows companies to expand and become larger. This in effect can actually increase the amount of taxes these rich people pay because of increased wealth and increased incentive to move operations back to America. This is seen throughout history where lowering these taxes has led to economic expansion and increased government revenue. Also corporations do not pay taxes only people do. Higher taxes on corporations means one of three things: higher prices for consumers, lower pay for workers, lower dividends for investors.

Lastly is Rent Control laws: Designed to keep the price of rent lower in low income areas actually has the opposite affect. I have explained the affects of this in other blog entries. You can read those to understand that. But the two most prominent cities with strong rent control laws are San Francisco and New York City. These two cities also have some of the highest rent prices despite these controls. Politicians know this but the public does not.

Our job: Become educated and vote out these politicians that no longer can take advantage of our ignorance.

Why tax cuts work for the country... and liberal governments

Today one of the largest debates is taking place in our nation's history. How to correct our deficit and ultimately our national debt. (Deficit is the yearly debt that the United States government racks up, the national debt is all those years added up through the years).

Today there are two main arguments. One group is for major spending cuts(conservative Republicans, libertarians, those in the so called "tea party") the other group is for bringing in more revenue through higher taxation (liberals and most democrats). Those who are for bi-partisan negotioting will go for a little of both(this is probably what will come about). The sad fact is that this argument is stupid to have considering the argument has been going on for years(in fact at least since 1920) and there is irrefutable proof that both can be accomplished by cutting spending and you can also raise revenues by yes LOWERING TAX RATES.

Economist Thomas Sowell writes that most would think a liberal democrat once made this statement: ""It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to his Government should remain unaltered." In fact the man that made this statement was the Secretary of the Treasury under the conservative republican president Calvin Coolidge.

Andrew Mellon made this statement because he knew that at higher prices people buy and invest less. When taxes are high on something, capital will not fly towards those things that are being taxed so highly. Therefore one might consider lowering these rates which will lead to an increase capital investment and in fact an increase revenue from those taxes. Lets look at the facts to back up this claim:

In 1916 there were 206 people who reported making over one million dollars according to the IRS. Five years later under liberal democrat Woodrow Wilson, there were only 21 people reporting making that much money. Why? tax rates on the rich skyrocketed. But then Congress later passed the tax cuts that Andrew Mellon was asking for and by 1925, there were once again 207 people reporting an income of a million dollars or more. So what had happened during that time when all the sudden millionaires disappeared?

Those rich people had put their money towards tax-exempt securities like local and state bonds. Sowell goes on to say that Mellon argued for two things. To get rid of those tax-exempt securities and to also lower the tax rates. He succeeded in only the latter after a long debate, just as we are having again today. Yes they used the "tax cuts for the rich" argument even years ago. This is not a new phenomenon. Some more facts:

In 1924 the federal government collected $50 million dollars in capital gains taxes. In 1925 that amount reached over $100 million dollars. When taxes were lowered, it made more sense to invest money in the economy because you got to keep more of the money you made, than to invest it in the tax-exempt securities that do not lead to economic expansion. Expansion that eventually leads to these increases in tax revenues. And as for those "rich" people in the top income bracket, they paid 30% of all taxes in 1920 but paid 65% of all taxes by 1929 after those "tax cuts for the rich". The reality is, there were more rich people that came about paying taxes and the already existing rich were investing money into the economy that allowed for this and thus they too were now paying into the nation's tax revenues.

All this was then replayed again under JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 administrations. Some can bring about statistics that show a strong economy even with high taxes. But this proves nothing other than the economy can still grow to some extent even with high taxes. I will not argue with that. Its easy to use that argument when prosperity unforeseen does not exist. In other words, we cannot know whether at lower taxes the economy would have even been stronger during those "strong" periods.

What is easy to judge is economic theory and science that makes sense. People will invest more when they can keep more of their return on investment. That common sense knowledge in itself should be enough. But if not the before mentioned evidence provided for nearly a century should be more than enough evidence that tax cuts work.

Cut spending and lower taxes!!

a painful truth...that could lessen the long term pain

No doubt it would be hard for a person such as Paris Hilton who is born into riches to have to give up that life for a life of struggle or responsibility. But this is the unfortunate thing that is going to have to take place nationwide to fix our coming financial collapse (as opposed to the financial meltdown we are currently facing). Individuals who are use to nice handouts will soon have to face the fact that those handouts are no longer feasible.

According to the most recent census, "around 80 percent of Americans 65 and older own their own homes compared to 43 percent under 35. Twenty-three million households, or 37 percent of all homeowners, own their homes free and clear, and most of these are seniors aged 65 and older. According to the Federal Reserve Board's 2007 "Survey of Consumer Finances," the median net worth of people 65 and over is $232,000, those under 35 years have a net worth of $12,000 and for those 35-44, it's $87,000." (Economist Walter Williams)

Naturally older people have accumulated more wealth than younger people. This is for good reason-they have had longer to do so. The question is why would our federal government's soon to be largest single expenditure program be a program that subsidizes of this wealthiest group of American's healthcare-Medicare.

Obviously not all senior citizens are rich but if the median net worth is 232,000 then half of senior citizens have at least that much. Currently those people's healthcare (medicare) is subsidized by taxpayers(yes some of it was their own taxes but someone living decades after retirement, receives far more money back than they ever paid into the program). Why not allow that senior citizen to make a deal with a financial institution(bank) to relinquish their home to the bank at the end of her life for a large lump sum of cash up front that will allow that senior citizen to live the rest of his/her/their life off the thousands of dollars he/she/they are worth. At death the bank comes into complete ownership of those belongings that were agreed upon. Anything she does not have to give up in order to get that lump sum of cash, will still be passed on to his/her/their heirs.

Currently heirs to these people greatly benefit. When Senior Citizens die their belongings go to their kids or benificiary. For years, taxpayers pay for much of their retirement(Social Security) and for their healthcare(Medicare). These people may not have the cash on them to pay for their own healthcare. But their accumulated wealth is plenty to pay for these services for the rest of their lives. With the above program our taxes could be lowered, and taxpayers would not subsidize the wealthiest amongst us. Some citizens would still need assistance. I would support a state by state approach to handle this. But for most Senior Citizens, they would have plenty enough to pay for these services.

Instead a tax payer supported program that is going broke and bankrupting our nation is used with no serious change in sight. Why? Probably because only 50% or less of young people vote while 70% of seniors vote. Since this distruction will not take place until these seniors and politicians are dead, why committ political suicide and consider fixing a serious destructive program with a system like the simple description above?