Getting Credit

The federal government is in a no win situation when it comes to providing federal aid. If it chose to forego giving Texas money to assist with the fires, it would be blamed for not supporting the State - as it was when it failed to quickly respond to the disaster after Katrina. If it does give money, Texans will refuse to give it credit and continue to believe, falsely, that they are self sufficient and don't need federal assistance. What the federal government needs to do is get a better PR group on it's side, so it gets credit for the things it assists with and people can start appreciating what their tax dollars are spent on. This might get people to start voting based upon the reality of where their benefits are coming from opposed to the false belief that they get nothing from their federal taxes.

For instance after the stimulus bill was passed, the government put signs up on highways which were being built due to federal money financing it. This gave the government credit for it's spending on a local level. Similarly, it needs to find a way to reinforce with Texans that they are not going it alone; rather federal employees have been on the ground since March ready to assist with the fires and have worked along side state and local employees to quell the fires. Yet, the elected representatives from that state seek to kill all federal aid.

Maybe if the voters start to realize what they will be without if their elected representatives were to prevail in their endeavors to kill all federal aid, then people will stop voting for people that want to take away the benefits they get.

Government Intervention

It certainly seems mean spirited, as no one wishes harm on other citizens, but since the Texas leaders, including Governor Perry, claim that government has no business being involved in our lives, maybe the US Government should refuse to provide federal assistance to Texas for the current wildfires. If they want to go it alone, then let them do just that. FEMA should not be responding to tragedies in states where the people do not want them to be. Such federal assistance can be reserved for places such as NY and VT, states that have not rejected federal government involvement. This is a matter of States Rights - it is the right of the state to reject federal assistance and so long as the state leaders are going to criticize US Government involvement, then they should not receive any.

Open Letter To President Obama On Tax Burdens

As the congressional committee meets to determine how to decrease the national debt, the White House needs to make the moral argument on why taxes need to be increased, especially on big business, the rich and super-rich - it is their obligation to repay the money spent on them. The debt that is being decreased is for the expenses that the US has already spent. The items money has been spent on include two recent wars, highways, safe airways via financing the FAA, financial bailouts, and other federal government obligations. Those who have benefited the most from these expenses are the corporations, the rich and the super-rich, and now they need to pay back their fair share of the debt that has been accrued.

No one benefits more from good roads than do employers. Workers need to go to work, products need to be transported from place to place, shipping harbors need to be dredged and made safe for passage, the airways need to be organized and safe for cargo transport. All of these measures allow business to be conducted. If the federal government ceased spending money on these things, then businesses - large and small - would cease to operate efficiently. The federal government has allowed businesses to work efficiently for many years by spending large amounts on updating roads and bridges, on maintaining the safety of shipping harbors, and on managing the nations airways. Accordingly there is no reason that businesses, the rich and super-rich who have all benefited from these projects should not be "burdened" with paying for the past payments on these projects.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will benefit corporations as well. Big oil companies are seeking to make profits from having access to the Iraqi oilfields, and now the Libyan oilfields. Exxon, the most profitable company in history, will surely benefit from the billions spent on the Iraq war. There is no reason that Exxon and it's shareholders should not, through increased taxes, help pay for the war. Further, as ships were attacked by Somali pirates, the companies shipping products through the straits looked to the US Navy to protect them - meanwhile many companies were avoiding taxes by flagging their ships in Liberia and Panama. The shipping companies should pay their share of the military protection they received - alternatively they could request naval protection from Liberia and Panama. The US military has been good for US business and those who have benefited the most from the military interventions should pay for theses expenses.

The benefits to big business as a result of the financial bailouts for the banks and automotive industry is well documented, and those who run these organizations should pay their share of taxes to offset the costs to the government.

Big Government benefits Big Business much more than people give it credit for, and it would behoove the White House to start making this argument in response to the GOP's false claims concerning taxes and business. Warren Buffet started the discussion in the recent New York Times Op-Ed piece. Now the White House needs to carry the conversation further to the obligation businesses, the rich and super-rich have to repay the government for the investment it has given to them over the past several decades, so they could do business, flourish and become the rich and super-rich.

Not a New Decade

In politics, sports and other arenas, people are talking about the past decade and trying to characterize it one way or another. The bad news for them is that the last decade is not over. Decades run from the years ending in 1 until and through the years ending in 0. In other words, the current decade started on January 1, 2001 and will end on December 31, 2010. January 1, 2011 starts the next decade, not January 1, 2010. This is apparent when one considers that we started counting years in year 1, not year 0; therefore, the first decade was from year 1 to year 10. The same continues to be true as we count above year 2000. While we may be in a hurry to end the past ten years with two recessions and other horrible events, unfortunately, we are stuck with it for another year no matter how much wishing or fuzzy math we want to apply to it.

Healthcare Insurance Debate

While we do not yet know what it is the Senate is going to propose concerning its Health Insurance Reform bill, there is some speculation that it will not include a public option. We anticipate that it will require that everyone have health insurance, that insurance companies can not refuse coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and possibly remove caps on annual and lifetime coverage amounts. However, if these items are included and there is no public option, then the US Congress will be giving the health insurance industry a license to steal.

If there is not going to be some control on what the cost for the coverages will be, the industry will say, "Having to cover everyone under these circumstances is expensive and the premiums will reflect the cost." They will say this whether it is true or not. Then our current 15 - 20% annual increases will seem small when they start ramping up the rates and blaming the legislation for it. The end result will be people will not be able to afford the coverage and will have to go uninsured. Small businesses will not be able to afford the premiums that will be charged and will have to drop coverage for their employees, who in turn will not be able to afford the individual coverage and will have to go uninsured. Without the public option, the problem of the uninsured is going to worsen, not be cured.

Peace Prize

Much ado has been made regarding President Obama getting the Noble Peace Prize. Many have said that he has not done anything to earn it, which may be true. However, some committee in Oslo obviously disagrees, and we are required to accept their determination regarding this.

What is not being discussed is that the award is likely much more of a rebuke of the GWB policies than an endorsement of President Obama's actions to date. Certainly, Europe was not a fan of our last President, and Obama is much more adored by our neighbors to the East. Nonetheless, it seems that the award to the newly elected President so quickly after taking office speaks more to what his predecessor blindly did regarding the wars than what Obama has done or will do regarding them. Just as importantly, Obama stated during the campaign and recently regarding the Afghanistan War that he is looking to reduce troop numbers and initiate a complete withdrawal as soon as possible, this had to make the Committee happy.

The award may also be a message to President Obama that there are high expectations for him regarding the two wars that he inherited.

No doubt after today that the world is watching.

Deficit Spending

There is a correlation between the tax rate and the revenue generated. If a tax rate is too high or too low, then the government does not maximize the tax revenue it could achieve. This theory is called the Laffer Curve, which has previously been discussed. The same kind of principal applies to the amount of tax received and the amount of spending in which the government engages.

If the government receives too little revenue, it spends more than it receives. If it receives too much money through tax revenue, then it spends too much. The end result in either case is deficit spending. There is, however, a solution. If the tax rate is too low, as it currently is, the tax rate needs to be increased to prevent overspending. If the tax rate is too high, the tax rate would need to be decreased to prevent overspending. Apparently, the ideal tax rate to prevent deficit spending is 19%.**

The rationale for the required tax rate is that Congress and the public need to feel the pinch of government. If the perceived cost of government is that it is cheap, then overspending results. In more micro terms, if a person has a high credit limit and low monthly payment, then it does not seem to cost a lot to spend a lot so debt is incurred. If the cost of high spending is perceived to be expensive (a higher monthly credit card payment), then it is less likely that a person or Congress will over spend. If the spending curve was graphically superimposed on the Laffer Curve, it would show an increase in spending by .15% for every 1% of tax rate reduction and a decrease in spending of .15% for every 1% of tax increase.

Many said that the balanced budgets during the Clinton Administration were a result of the GOP Congress being so disciplined. Considering the deficit spending that the GOP has engaged in while controlling the Congress and White House, this is obviously not the case. Rather, it was the tax increases that the first Bush and Clinton Administrations imposed that controlled spending. The reason for today's deficit spending is the ill conceived tax cuts that were given to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003 because now the cost of government seems low so it is easy for Congress to continue to spend too much money. Had these cuts not gone into place, the perceived cost of government would have remained high and the spending would have remained under control, and the debt imposed upon the future generations would not have been imposed.

To prevent future generations from being saddled with continued debt, this new Democratic Congress needs to raise taxes to maximize revenue and eliminate deficit spending. Taxes need to be raised and the debts which have accumulated over these past six years need to be paid immediately so that the American Public is not saddled with the significant debt and high tax rates that will be necessary in the future to correct the fiscal mismanagement done by the Bush Administration.

* The diagram is from Wikipedia
** More information on this can be obtained in the June 2006 Atlantic Monthly; however, a subscription to the website is required.

GW's Tax Increase

The deficit spending that the GOP has engaged in over the past six years has direct and immediate impacts on the American population. Everyone is talking about saddling future generations with taxes to pay the debt that has been incurred today, but Americans are having to pay the equivalent of higher taxes today to prevent themselves from being hit with even bigger taxes tomorrow to compensate for the deficit spending.

All financial advisors say that you need to start planning for your retirement as early as possible. The benefit of compound interest and maximizing your contributions to a 401(k) or IRA will assist in ensuring that you will be able to pay for your retirement when that day comes. If you do not start early, the compound interest will not have long enough to provide maximum benefits, and if you do not contribute enough money to the retirement plan, you will not get enough compounding to total the amount necessary for retirement. However, there is another element to this that is not being discussed: tomorrow's tax rate.

Today, you can put your money into a traditional 401(k) or IRA. Either allow you to deduct the contribution from your taxes. Thus, you get the benefit of saving pre-tax dollars and allowing the compounding effect to occur until you withdraw the money. When you withdraw the money after retirement, you will be required to pay tax on all the money withdrawn (contributions and earnings). The theory is that when you are working, you are going to be in a higher tax bracket than when you are retired and have no working income. This may not come true. Due to the deficit spending this administration has embarked on, when today's 30-somethings start retiring, Congress may need to significantly raise the tax rates to pay for the Social Security IOUs that have been accumulating since the Reagan Administration and crescendoing during this Administration as well as pay for all of the accumulated debt that has been incurred during the past six years. The end result is that today's tax benefit will become tomorrow's tax burden. Those who benefitted by deferring the tax consequences of the traditional 401(k) and IRA will get hit with a higher tax burden than if they had originally saved post-tax dollars.

Many retirement advisors are telling people to save money in a Roth IRA or the newly created Roth 401(k). These are post-tax dollars saved and when they are withdrawn no tax is paid. The net result is that people are having to pay more in taxes today, by not getting the tax deferred traditional retirement plans, so they can avoid having to pay the possible excruciatingly high tax that will be required tomorrow to pay for the fiscal mismanagement we are currently under.

No one explained to the tax payers that the tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003 were going to immediately increase the tax burden of the middle class. This is the bait and switch in which the GOP consistently engages. Deceive the public into thinking that they will benefit by sending them a check for $300.00 and then increase their effective tax rate significantly, but don't tell them what you are doing until it is too late for them to stop you from giving significant benefits your rich country club buddies. Worse yet, most people do not have access to a Roth 401(k), so they cannot even protect themselves from getting hurt upon retirement. Shame on the Administration for continuing to undercut the middle class in this manner.

Sideline Suits

Last Monday during the Monday Night Football Game, Jack Del Rio the Jacksonville Jaguars Head Coach was wearing a business suit on the sidelines. One of the commentators mentioned that there are league rules the prohibit coaches from wearing suits on the sidelines, which apparently is true; however, Del Rio got an exemption in order to wear one. The San Francisco Coach, Mike Nolan, has received a similar exemption. These exemptions are for only a couple of games. The idea of prohibiting coaches from wearing suits is ridiculous and needs to be reevaluated.

George Steinbrenner, New York Yankees owner, requires that all of his baseball players cut their hair appropriately and cannot have beards. Additionally, each of them must wear a suit when they are traveling to a game. Steinbrenner requires that his players show respect and look respectable when they are seen in public. This is a stark contrast from what the NFL requires of its representatives.

The NFL does not allow suits on the sidelines because it wants the free promotion from the wearing of hats and sweatshirts. NFL Properties wants to sell its wears and apparently suits do not accomplish this. There is more to the game than how much money is paid for jerseys and other paraphenalia. The coaches and players are role models for many, and the way they look and act has a direct impact on the way others look and act.

A stroll through the criminal court on sentencing day is an indication of how influential the sports franchises are. When one is trying to make a good impression in an effort to obtain lienency, what they wear is important. However, virtually none of those who have been arrested and pled out to a crime or been found guilty are wearing a suit. Some are in sports jerseys while others are in jeans and a t-shirt. While many of the sports jerseys cost more than most dress shirts, they are not a substitute for a shirt and tie when that is what is appropriate. Educating people when a suit is appropriate and when street attire is appropriate is important. Having football coaches look and act respectfully when they are on camera could go a long way in providing this necessary education, just as Steinbrenner requires of his players.

New Late Policy

The next time you are stuck in traffic that you did not anticipate on your way to work and end up being a few minutes late consider the new Wal-Mart lateness policy. Wal-Mart employees, if they are going to be absent or late for work, no less than an hour before their shift starts, must call a central number. At that time they will receive a confirmation number and then they must call their manager and provide that confirmation number to the manager. If this is not done, or not done at least an hour prior to the shift begins, the employee will receive a demerit. After a certain number of demerits discipline including termination will result.

This is an egregious policy for even the most responsible of people. All parents know how likely it is that a child will not cooperate in getting ready in the morning and getting dropped off at the daycare resulting in being a few minutes late to the office. This cannot be anticipated an hour in advance. Also, anyone who commutes to the office knows that unexpected traffic can occur, causing some ont to sometimes up to an hour late, and despite appropriate due diligence a person can be late a number of times in any given time period due to the unexpected.

Now couple the ordinary difficulties of getting to work on time with the people who work at Wal-Mart. The low wages the Wal-Mart pays can result in people not owning a telephone because they cannot afford one. This prevents them from calling the required number an hour before work. Additionally, a number of people who work low wage jobs do not have reliable vehicles or take public transportation such as a bus to work. The car can unexpectedly break down and public transportation in many areas is far from being reliable. These kinds of problems are not known an hour prior to work. They are also confronted with childcare issues and the standard traffic congestion that we are all confronted with.

This policy appears to be a system designed to have employees live in fear of losing their jobs. It is nothing more than a strong arm tactic so that managers can laud something over the heads of already demoralized employees. Having employees live in fear of their continued employment is not conducive to having a productive workforce. It is when employees feel comfortable in their surroundings and feel that they are contributing to something good that they will have the incentive to work hard opposed to doing just enough to get by. Wal-Mart apparently does not seek to have such an environment.

Of course, the more animosity it shows toward its employees, the more likely it is that the employees will leave and less likely Wal-Mart will be successful in finding replacements. Word gets around about where is a good and bad place to work. The good employees will know they do not want to work in a place like Wal-Mart and the bad employees will be late often enough that they will be fired. That does not leave too many people to work at the store.

Employers need to start taking lessons from Wal-Mart as to what they should not do such as skimp on health benefits, continuously cut wages to benefit the bottomline and now force employees to live in fear of their jobs by instituting bad beauricratic policies that are bad on paper and bad in practice.

The Big Three Healthcare

Recently there was a meeting of the Big Three with GW. While the agenda was not provided to the public, it was speculated that one of the topics was going to be the pinch the car manufacturers are feeling due to their healthcare costs. As previously discussed in this blog, GM has to increase its sticker price by approximately $1,500 per vehicle to pay for health insurance for its workers and retirees. This places GM at a business disadvantage since its major competitors, Toyota and Honda, do not have the $5 billion per year health insurance bill and can price their vehicles at a lower cost. Business is finally realizing that they are at a disadvantage due to the current health insurance system. Until universal healthcare is implemented in the United States, U.S. companies will not be able to compete in a global market. Maybe the politicians will begin to listen now that the business community is supporting universal healthcare since it really is good for business and the economy.

Box Store Healthcare

Maryland passed a law requiring that stores with a specific number of emplolyees and making a specific amount of sales was required to provide healthcare to its employees. The law was pointed at the box stores that pay subprime wages and cuts costs by not offering healthcare to its employees. The law was relatively recently struck down by a Federal District Court and Maryland has taken an appeal. The Federal District Court determined that a federal law, ERISA, preempted the state law and, therefore, the state law could not contradict or alter the ERISA requirements. While the Court may be correct on the legal analysis and it may be upheld on appeal, the issue has been squarely confronted by the states and calls to arms will likely rise to the Federal level requiring that Congress act.

A Berkeley Study concluded that tax payers are subsidizing Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart employees do not receive health insurance and when they get sick they end up at the emergency room. (for more infomation on Wal-Mart Healthcare) Joe Taxpayer ends up flipping the bill. Thus, the cost for low prices is higher taxes to pay for the corporate subsidies Wal-Mart receives. Maryland's law sought to end these subsidies.

A number of other states were considering similar laws and they likely will not pass these laws until resolution is brought to the Maryland case. At that time, they may try to tailor new laws to the court ruling or they may start to put pressure on the Congress to amend ERISA to allow for the state mandates or they may call upon Congress to pass a similar law to Maryland's. Of course the latter is better than the former since it would impose a universal solution opposed to the piecemeal solution that would result from state by state laws. Further, Wal-Mart and other companies would be knowledgeable of all of its obligations under a universal federal law opposed to having to interpret each state law and trying to find the loopholes available in the various state laws, which will inevitably be found and exploited (better to pay the lawyers than the workers apparently.)

With a Democratic Congress Wal-Mart should be concerned that this type of legislation will start to get traction. While the Democrats are not enemies of business as they were once perceived to be a popular policy change such as this is the very type of issue they campaigned on to get elected and the new Congress should take this issue up as one of its first pieces of legislation. In the meantime, Maryland is right to continue the legal battle and attempt to salvage its healthcare law.

Why They Lost

This administration apparently believes that the voters are stupid. Rumsfeld's recent statement that the the strategy in Iraq is "too complex" for mere mortals to understand shows the contempt this administration has for the voting public. To assume that those who have a vested interest in the strategy, namely those who may be called to serve and those with family members serving, and those who follow the administration military decisions, are too stupid to understand the strategy is fatal to any elected official.

The American public is a lot of thing including apathetic, disinterested, busy and suffering at the hands of government decisions to cut back on various social programs. One thing it is not is stupid. The strategies that are being implemented in Iraq are far from being too complex for the average American to understand. There is nothing confusing about Cheney's statement that the insurgents are in their last throws, Bush's statement that he want's Bin Laden dead or alive and his statement during the debates that he does not give Bin Laden much thought, or other administration statements indicating that (1) we should expect immediate result from their brilliant decisions and (2) there is no coherent strategy except the "stay the course" mentality that has been the policy from the beginning.

The GOP has blindly followed the administration into the war. At no time has the GOP controlled Congress or Senate tried to call the administration to account for any of its actions. There were never questions about why the administration was firing generals who said things that were true but not part of the scrpt they wanted to read from. There were never questions as to why the soldiers were not being provided the proper equipment. There was never a question as to why Haliburton and Bechtel were receiving huge contracts. There were never questions as to why the cost has topped $10 billion per month. This lack of independent thought by the legislature and the contempt the administration shows the general public comes through in an election. The results of this past election provided the just dues to the party that does not believe in the people's ability to question the war and understand that those who are in charge of the military do not know what they are doing.

Potatoes From A Box

We are all busy. With the boss’s demands, the long commute, shuttling kids between activities, community service and other obligations, the day is stretched thin, and as a result sacrifices are made. Everyone needs to prioritize. They need to determine what activities they are going to focus on and what they are going to drop by the leeway.

For many families, dinner together has been dropped. When dad works late, mom is picking up junior from soccer practice and sister is being shuttled with the neighbor friend to dance class, many families do not have an hour in the four o’clock to eight o’clock zone to get together at a single dinner table. This is a reasonable sacrifice considering everyone can have a healthful dinner without sitting at a single table at the same time; however, if marketing and items in a grocery store are any indication, many families are not ensuring that there is a healthful meal to be eaten for dinner.

Among the ready to eat items being advertised is a bagged pot roast. Apparently everything someone needs for a pot roast is in the bag: the roast, vegetables, gravy mix, potatoes, everything. All the person has to do is add water and throw it into the crockpot and go. There is something seriously wrong with this concept. Pot roast is about the easiest meal that anyone can make. Cut up a few vegetables, wash and slice a few potatoes and throw the roast into a crock pot for ten hours. It is perfect for the busy family. It can be put into the pot in the morning before anyone goes to work, and it will be hot and cooked when the first person gets home. The simplicity of the meal makes the idea that some families are making it out of a bag appalling.

Of course pot roast is not the only easy to make item people are buying in a ready made form. Potatoes have for years been available in an instant form. Either through power or sliced and dehydrated for potatoes au gratin these may have been one of the first ready to eat boxed meal sold to the masses. It is disappointing since these are easy items to make. Why is it that we have concluded that we do not have ten minutes to boil some potatoes or slice a few potatoes and add the basic ingredients needed for potatoes au gratin?

These kinds of food items are hurting us more than they are helping. First they cost more than the raw ingredients. Second they are all high in preservatives and sodium and other food stuffs that nutritionists and doctors warn us against eating. By having bad eating habits, we are reducing our efficiency at work causing us to work longer hours and be away from home more. It is only through proper nutrition that a healthful living can be achieved. Moreover, it is unlikely that we as a society are actually so busy that we cannot spend the ten or so minutes that are necessary to make basic healthful meals for ourselves and families. There is just no reason why we need to continue eating potatoes out of a box.

School Days

A typical school day for public school highschool students begins slightly before 8:00 a.m. and goes until about 2:30 p.m. This is less than seven hours of class time minus time for the students to eat lunch. Thus, there is approximately five hours of actual education time for students and a number of high school students have a period or two for a study hall during which they are not receiving lectures. One of the basis for justifying "No Child Left Behind" was to determine which schools were failing and assist the United States in rising in the international statistics. Creating new tests will not benefit the schools; rather, we need a complete overhaul of the way we address the education process. First we need to start spending time educating students. A six hour day with study halls is not sufficient time for students to be educated. This is a nominal part of the day and the amount of time students can spend learning needs to increase. There is no reason that students cannot have their academic day go from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The second basic change that needs to occur is the academic year needs to be lengthened. Most schools have only 180 days of class. Students get holidays throughout scattered throughout the year and are out of class by the end of June. With so much time out of class, students are not reaching their maximum potential of learning. There is no reason for a mid-winter break or a spring break and the reasons for having long summer breaks is obsolete. We are no longer an agricultural society and the students are not needed on the farm. Thus, we need to make the academic year a minimum of 220 days with only a short break (two weeks) between academic years. This will allow students to spend more time in the classroom learning opposed to out of the classroom forgetting their texts.

If we want to rise in the international rankings we need to look at what the other countries are doing to out educate the US. The most basic items are that they require the students to actually sit in class during the day, not just a nominal portion of the day, and they require that the students spend the majority of the year in the classroom, not just six months. Lets require our students to start spending time learning opposed to being on break and start trying to compete on a real basis with the international community with our education system.

School Is For Academics

Friday Night Lights is a fictional account of a Texas highschool football team. Some but not much of the show portrays the students’ lives in the classroom and in the school halls. What is evident from the show is that football is an important part of the highschool experience, at least for the players and possibly the cheerleading squad. While the show is a fictional account, the impact of school sports in actual schools is real, and much of it is adverse for the majority of students. It is time to reconsider whether sports should remain part of public education institutions.

A minority of students in either a highschool or university actually partake in extracurricular sports; however, all students are impacted. The after school games are scheduled for times when travel to and from the event will put the child home at a "reasonable" hour. The academic schedule is designed to prevent the athletes from missing too much class time. The end result is that classes start earlier in the day then they would if the sports schedule was not accounted for. Students who are highschool and university age have brains that do not function fully until later in the morning, yet due in large part to the athletic schedule, schools start at 7:30 a.m. or earlier. Thus the first hour and a half to two hours of school are unproductive because the students’ brains are not yet awake. Worse yet, a number of students throughout the nation have a bus ride of an hour or more, which requires that they get out of bed before 6:00 a.m. to prepare for school and catch the public school bus. Requiring that students get up this early is detrimental to their learning abilities. This basis alone is sufficient to justify removing sports from school or at least adjusting the academic schedule to be less beholden to the athletic schedule.

Here in New Jersey schools are funded through property taxes. At least one half of a resident’s property tax goes to the public school districts. A not insubstantial amount of a school budget goes to the funding of extracurricular sports. By removing this budget item a number of books and possibly additional teachers could be paid for. Again, a minority of students are directly benefitted by school sports in comparison to the number of students in any given school; however, all students are having a reduction in the number of teachers, books and quality of education materials they receive due to the athletic budget.

Academics suffer as a result of sports. There are a number of incidents throughout the country whereby a budget battle erupts within a board of education or a budget is voted down by the electorate and libraries, arts, music and other classes are cut from the budget in a supposed attempt to balance the budget. Rarely does the athletic budget get cut. Such acts by board of educations are purely political. They believe that a budget will pass if the electorate believes that the alternative is cutting academic programs.

The United States lags far behind other first world nations in the quality of education that public school students are receiving. One thing that needs to be addressed is how to raise the quality. By requiring schools to be for education opposed to having a major focus on sports as currently exists, the US education quality will rise. By starting classes at hours that are more conducive to a student’s education abilities and funding education opposed to sports, this can be achieved.

Alternate Path

Report after report concludes that the middle-class is being squeezed out of being able to afford college costs. As previously argued in this blog, (Middle Class Tax; Personal Savings Rate; The Lost Generation) much of this debt is a result of less governmental assistance for students to pay for college and a shift from need-based assistance to loans. Coupled with a 375% increase in tuition and fees between 1982 and 2005, the financial shift has had a disproportionate impact on the middle and lower class. With such staggering numbers and no change in sight, its time for the marketplace establish new options.

Colleges do not produce students who are ready to work in the marketplace. Prior to Airborne Express being purchased by another company it had a fairly large computer programming department. Whenever it hired a new computer programer who had recently graduated from college the company wrote off the person’s first year salary because that person was going to spend more time in training, at a significant cost to the company, than performing actual work. If the private company is burdened with training the employee, then there is little or no difference between the current student and someone without a college education that has some basic background in computer programming.

The marketplace needs to establish an alternative to the overly priced college education that does not prepare someone for work. An intense two year program in computer programming which is conducted in cooperation with local and national businesses to determine a curriculum, that is cheaper than the current college tuition, will be better for the students and businesses than the current system. In addition to providing the students the actual necessary tools, not just the ones some academic thinks is necessary, by having business connections and cooperation will assist the students in establishing connections with possible employers and creates a greater chance of the students becoming employed.

This educational model will benefit all. The students will have less costs since the education process will be for fewer years and the business community will benefit since it will not have to retrain new employees coming from these institutions. It is time to reevaluate the educational process and start preparing students for the work they are going to do upon graduation instead of preparing them for a life of student loan debt.

Class Warfare

For years we heard the Republicans explain that President Clinton was passing balanced budgets because there was a Republican Congress. However, now that there is a GOP dominated government – White House, Congress and Supreme Court – we see the most fiscally irresponsible government this nation has had in generations. Their actions show that the balanced budgets of the 1990s was due solely to the Democratic leadership of President Clinton and had nothing to do with a Republican Congress.

In 1993, President Clinton passed an economic package by a single vote in the Senate, which was cast by Vice President Gore. From that point on, the government was on a defined economic plan that over the course of five years resulted in balance budgets being submitted to the Congress and budget surpluses being established. The fiscal discipline extended to President Clinton vetoing irresponsible bills such as the repeal the Estate Tax. President Clinton vetoed the bill after it was delivered to the White House by a farmer on a tractor. The GOP argued that it is the farmers and small business owners who were hurt by the Estate Tax, yet despite this argument neither the farming lobby nor the GOP could show one farmer who lost his farm due to the tax. It was just a give away to the rich, and President Clinton did the responsible thing by vetoing it.

In contrast the House of Representatives, among other things, passed a $50 billion spending cut package. The spending cuts include reducing funding for food stamps, student loan subsidies, farmer subsidies, child care assistance, and medicare funding. The Senate passed a $60 billion tax cut package, most of these tax cuts were for the nation’s wealthy. These bills as a whole required the poor and middle class to sacrifice their well-being for the sole benefit of the rich. Ultimately, it will be the poor and middle-class who will have to pay the large deficits that will result since the rich are on track to pay no taxes whatsoever.

The biggest disappointment with these actions is that it was the government that created the middle class, and now it is the government that is going to destroy the middle class. After World War II, the GI Bill was created. Tens of thousands of soldiers where able to go to school when they returned from Europe and the Pacific. Also, the government created programs for veterans to obtain affordable mortgages so they could purchase their first homes. Through programs like these, the vets became the first solid middle class this nation had ever had.

Since WW II, the middle class has relied upon the government to allow it to continue to exist. Access to college through student loans, PELL grants and other financing mechanisms has allowed the middle class to send their children to college. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been integral in ensuring that interest rates would consistently be low enough and stable enough for the middle class to get mortgages, and the one tax shelter the middle class has access to is the tax deduction for mortgage interest - this is a tax deduction that a panel has recommended having removed from the tax code because it gives too much money to too many people.

All of this assistance will soon be gone due to the GOP’s actions. When the assistance disappears so will the core of the middle class. Additionally, there will be unsustainable deficits left in their wake and those who used to make up the middle class will have the burden of paying off the deficits which destroyed their livelihoods in the first place. Ultimately, there will not be enough money to reduce the debt; therefore, there will not be enough money to reestablish the middle class either. If the GOP is left in control of the government, the only ones who will suffer will be those who once thought they were living a comfortable life.

Predictions

Last March I commented that the Democrats could not take over Congress because the electorial math did not work out - there just were not enough competative seats for the Democrats to get fifteen new seats. While that may still be true, it is a lot more exciting and at least possible that fifteen or more GOP incumbents will be ousted.

The election gets much more exciting if one pays attention to specific races. For instance, two time incumbent Mike Ferguson who is a hardcore Bush follower and about as far to the right as Rick Santorum to the West is in a tight race with Linda Stender. The New York times says that the district is leaning Ferguson, but some polls have it as a statistical dead heat.

The district has been cleverly drawn to support the GOP candidates by incorporating much of the western part of New Jersey. So the fact that there is a possibility that Ferguson will lose is a significant statement of the local and national political sentiment.

This of course should be contrasted with what is thought to be a more liberal district to the north, which ironically has an even more conservative GOP incumbent, Scott Garrett. He is being challenged by Paul Aronsohn, who held a position in government with the Clinton administration and Governor McGreevey's administration. It does not appear that it is going to be a close election there regardless of the reasons for Aronsohn's strong political resume.

What is known, is that November 7 is going to be a very interesting night, one that should be watched closely by all.

A Few Simple Words

In the course of history some of the most powerful statements have been made by using a minimal number of words. General Colin Powell, in his letter to Senator John McCain, has once again achieved this remarkable feat.

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against
terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

In all of the blogs that have been discussing this issue, it could not have been said any better.