Tuesday, January 31, 2006
College Debate
I want to address some of the things mentioned in this article but I don't have time now. For now I'll just leave the link to remind me and get back with some of my thoughts and first hand experience later.
Alito Confirmed
It's official now. Samuel Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court has been confirmed.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Alito's Approval
I seem to remember someone feeling quite certain that Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court would be approved in short order. Today he won approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee. A nominee must be approved by the committee before being voted on by the entire Senate. Msnbc.com reports today, "The only way Democrats can stop the conservative judge now is through a filibuster, a manuever they show little interest in." Score one for the Gang of 14.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Stupid in America
Tonight I saw one of the best documentaries that I've ever seen. ABC's 20/20 with John Stossel ran a documentary about American public education entitled "Stupid in America." I'm a big fan of John Stossel.
If you're not familiar with Stossel, you should check out Give Me a Break. He walks you through how he started out in the 1980s as a consumer advocate reporting on scams. One of the stories I remember most was a piece he ran about abortion clinics. Apparently it was becoming a relatively wide spread problem that these clinics would report that women were pregnant and needed to come in for an abortion when they were really not pregnant at all. Stossel reported on the problem from the consumer's point of view. These women were being cheated, paying for a service that they never received. Stossel hired women to go into abortion clinics and when supplying a urine specimens to the clinic actually supplied the clinic with a sample of Stossel's urine that they were carrying. Something like 6 out of 10 clinics reported, based on a sampling of Stossel's urine, that the woman was pregnant. After finding out about different scams and how businesses were cheating consumers he advocated increased government oversight. He wanted more regulation to solve society's problems. Over time, Stossel decided to revisit scams he had previously busted. He learned that even after the light he had shed on the problems that the situation had not grown much better. He slowly began to learn first hand that increased government regulation was not the answer to everything. He became far more libertarian in his beliefs and became a firm believer that government has a role but it's not to increase regulation to solve any and all of society's ills.
Now that you know who he is, back to Stossel's current story. Stossel once again lays out a very compelling case. In this instance, how forcing children to go to a single school without having a choice is a government monopoly. He compares it to AT&T back in the 1980. He argues that consumers (in this case the children being sent to often failing government schools) would be far better off given choices in the education market just as they're better off given a choice of Verizon, Cingular, Sprint, T-Mobile, and so many other mobile phone carriers these days as opposed to being stuck with a single provider no matter how poor they may be.
I hope people don't get me wrong. I don't hate public schools. My mom was a public school teacher for 30 some odd years. Both of her parents were public school teachers. I have numerous aunts and uncles that were teachers, a sister-in-law that was a teacher, and lots of friends. I'm a product of a public school. 1st through 12th grade I attended public school in what most people would say is one of the worst possible places for it - south Mississippi. But my experience wasn't a horror story. By and large I had teachers that cared and other students around me that challenged me.
Stossel went to one of the top public schools in New Jersey, supposedly the state with the highest rated public schools in the nation. Stossel asked what about the purpose of the Bill of Rights and one of the causes of the Civil War. No one was able to answer. He went to South Carolina which has one of the lowest rated public schools in the nation. He interviewed the state Secretary of Education about the problems. She continually said that the schools there are dramatically improving and have great things in store over the next few years. No acknowledgement of the fact that less than 50% of students entering high school graduate after 4 years there.
He contrasted her attitude with that of a newly elected governor in the state. The governor moved to South Carolina after being elected and upon moving learned that his family was in an underperforming school district. He was then told that whereas everyone else has to send their children to the school in the district where they live, the governor is exempt from that law. Why is what seems to be good enough for everyone else, going to the school in the district in which you live, not good enough for the governor?
I'm not going to take any more time than I already have to recap Stossel's arguments. Read his article. The whole point of this was to say that education in America is a major problem and something needs to be done to address the problem. This would be one of my other first initiatives as governor. People seem to agree that the governor's children deserve better that our current system; they deserve a choice. Like the South Carolina governor, I just happen to agree that your children deserve a choice as well.
If you're not familiar with Stossel, you should check out Give Me a Break. He walks you through how he started out in the 1980s as a consumer advocate reporting on scams. One of the stories I remember most was a piece he ran about abortion clinics. Apparently it was becoming a relatively wide spread problem that these clinics would report that women were pregnant and needed to come in for an abortion when they were really not pregnant at all. Stossel reported on the problem from the consumer's point of view. These women were being cheated, paying for a service that they never received. Stossel hired women to go into abortion clinics and when supplying a urine specimens to the clinic actually supplied the clinic with a sample of Stossel's urine that they were carrying. Something like 6 out of 10 clinics reported, based on a sampling of Stossel's urine, that the woman was pregnant. After finding out about different scams and how businesses were cheating consumers he advocated increased government oversight. He wanted more regulation to solve society's problems. Over time, Stossel decided to revisit scams he had previously busted. He learned that even after the light he had shed on the problems that the situation had not grown much better. He slowly began to learn first hand that increased government regulation was not the answer to everything. He became far more libertarian in his beliefs and became a firm believer that government has a role but it's not to increase regulation to solve any and all of society's ills.
Now that you know who he is, back to Stossel's current story. Stossel once again lays out a very compelling case. In this instance, how forcing children to go to a single school without having a choice is a government monopoly. He compares it to AT&T back in the 1980. He argues that consumers (in this case the children being sent to often failing government schools) would be far better off given choices in the education market just as they're better off given a choice of Verizon, Cingular, Sprint, T-Mobile, and so many other mobile phone carriers these days as opposed to being stuck with a single provider no matter how poor they may be.
I hope people don't get me wrong. I don't hate public schools. My mom was a public school teacher for 30 some odd years. Both of her parents were public school teachers. I have numerous aunts and uncles that were teachers, a sister-in-law that was a teacher, and lots of friends. I'm a product of a public school. 1st through 12th grade I attended public school in what most people would say is one of the worst possible places for it - south Mississippi. But my experience wasn't a horror story. By and large I had teachers that cared and other students around me that challenged me.
Stossel went to one of the top public schools in New Jersey, supposedly the state with the highest rated public schools in the nation. Stossel asked what about the purpose of the Bill of Rights and one of the causes of the Civil War. No one was able to answer. He went to South Carolina which has one of the lowest rated public schools in the nation. He interviewed the state Secretary of Education about the problems. She continually said that the schools there are dramatically improving and have great things in store over the next few years. No acknowledgement of the fact that less than 50% of students entering high school graduate after 4 years there.
He contrasted her attitude with that of a newly elected governor in the state. The governor moved to South Carolina after being elected and upon moving learned that his family was in an underperforming school district. He was then told that whereas everyone else has to send their children to the school in the district where they live, the governor is exempt from that law. Why is what seems to be good enough for everyone else, going to the school in the district in which you live, not good enough for the governor?
I'm not going to take any more time than I already have to recap Stossel's arguments. Read his article. The whole point of this was to say that education in America is a major problem and something needs to be done to address the problem. This would be one of my other first initiatives as governor. People seem to agree that the governor's children deserve better that our current system; they deserve a choice. Like the South Carolina governor, I just happen to agree that your children deserve a choice as well.
Trend Setting
In one of my last posts I used the term "temptations" to refer to what a lot of politicians face. I don't think it was a term that I had heard previously applied to that specific situation. Today I was reading an article on msnbc.com about some of the fallout from the Abramoff scandal. The Abramoff scandal, for those that may not be familiar with it, is about people basically buying influence in Washington. In one particular section of the article, msnbc.com is discussing what changes are being made to make it more difficult to buy influence the way it is alleged to have occurred with Abramoff. The heading reads, "working to ban temptation." I think that's a good thing and the more people that recognize that the better. Just remember where you heard it first.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The Purpose of Taxes
I was thinking tonight at dinner about my dream from a couple of weeks ago. The dream where I was the governor of Georgia. What would I do as governor? Well, to start with, a governor can't do much. The governor doesn't make laws. The governor does have nice platform on a state level and even occasionally on the national level - especially if your last name happens to be Schwarzenegger - to force the agenda that he wants to see. This started me thinking about my agenda.
My first priority is tax reform. There are 2 elements to the current tax system. There's the amount of money that the government collects from us all and then generally turns around and spends and there's the processes that we as taxpayers have to go through to feel reasonably safe that we've paid the government what we legally owe and aren't going to be subject to any sort of an audit. I think any reasonable person would agree that the amount of money that the government spends is certainly something that can be curbed. That's not going to be easy to do, though. People are accustomed to certain programs and expenditures being available and there would be a lot of resistance , even if only very vocal resistance by a few people who were affected by program X. Because of that, I think the process would be the easiest thing to change.
I think you'd be had pressed to find any reasonable person that believes that the current tax process is a good idea. I'm personally a big fan of at least the basic premise of FairTax (read my review of The FairTax Book or buy your own copy). I think implementing something similar at a state level would not only be a great thing for the state but would also be a great thing in that it would be another example that the federal government could draw upon to prove the concept. I say another example because there are numerous states that do something that is in some respects very similar. The largest and most notable are Florida and Texas. Neither state has a state income tax and instead collects the majority of its revenues through sales and other taxes. I digress, though.
The best thing in my mind about a program similar to FairTax is that it removes the temptation from taxation. Taxation is a temptation for politicians, I believe. In my last post I talked about the different temptations that politicians undoubtedly face. Taxation may be the largest. Originally I think taxation was pure. The earliest revenues were used for building a federal infrastructure with legislative buildings and courthouses and beginning to assemble what is today the greatest national defense that the world has ever known. Some of our tax revenues still go to reasonable causes but so much doesn't anymore.
Today there are two main reasons that tax laws are passed. I don't remember if this came from The FairTax Book or another source or if I happened to assemble this. Regardless of the source, I've long believed this to be the case. The main reasons tax laws are passed today are to influence behavior and to buy votes. Think about that for a few minutes. Think of the different tax laws that you're familiar with. Homeowner's deduction. You save money on your taxes if you own a home. It's meant to encourage home ownership. Investerwords.com says, "The deduction is intended to encourage renters to become homeowners, under the belief that home ownership encourages upstanding citizenship and reduces crime." How about another one. Your 401k. 401kFocus.com says, "In order to encourage savings, the government created special tax advantages for 401k participants." Non-profit deductions are meant to encourage giving to charitable organizations. Student loans and interest deductibility are meant to encourage education. Get the picture? The government gives you a small financial reward for doing what it wants you to do.
The second reason, buying votes, is a little bit harder to get your arms around. Lets start with a relatively easy one: prescription drug coverage for seniors. This is not about whether it's a good idea or whether or not some seniors could use help paying for prescription drugs. God knows if my grandmother were still alive and needed help paying for prescription drugs I'd be working a second job now instead of writing this blog entry to help her pay for them. But take a step back for a second and remember - this is not about whether or not prescription drug coverage for seniors is a good idea. This is about whether or not it's an attempt by the government to buy votes. Now lets think this through. The basic way this program works is that a smaller amount of money is taken from every tax payer (roughly 280 million Americans that should be paying taxes) and redistributed to a much smaller number of seniors that are eligible for prescription drug coverage (less than 12 million enrolled as of 1/1/2006). If the government takes $50 each year from each person, most people aren't going to miss $50 over the course of a year. Especially not when it's automatically withheld from your paycheck and there's no clear easy way to see how much you paid or understand where it's going. That's another story, though. That $50 from 280 million people turns into almost $100 every month for 12 million seniors seeking prescription drug coverage. That extra $100 makes 12 million people very happy and therefore very eager to vote for you. 12 million people may or may not sound like a big number when you're talking about buying votes but the last 3 Presidential elections combined were decided by less than 12 million votes! 12 million is a HUGE number of votes.
Vote buying happens in other ways as well. The entire aspect of a progressive tax is meant to buy votes. The tax system that we have is called a progressive system. The more money you make - the higher the tax rate you pay. Your rate, in addition to the amount of taxes you pay, gets progressively higher. Think about it. The higher the annual income level, the fewer people who make it. More people make at least $10/hour than $15. More people make at least $15 than make at least $20. More people make at least $50 than make $100. The higher the income level of the people you raise taxes on the fewer people you affect. And raising taxes on fewer people gives you more money to spend on more people.
A concept like FairTax removes a politician from these temptations and as I've described previously, these have to be some very strong temptations. Any effort to reform and cleanup government would have to start with something like this. Remove from the equation not just all the headaches associated with the current process but also the temptations that the process places upon the politicians. Don't tempt them to influence your behavior or buy your vote.
My first priority is tax reform. There are 2 elements to the current tax system. There's the amount of money that the government collects from us all and then generally turns around and spends and there's the processes that we as taxpayers have to go through to feel reasonably safe that we've paid the government what we legally owe and aren't going to be subject to any sort of an audit. I think any reasonable person would agree that the amount of money that the government spends is certainly something that can be curbed. That's not going to be easy to do, though. People are accustomed to certain programs and expenditures being available and there would be a lot of resistance , even if only very vocal resistance by a few people who were affected by program X. Because of that, I think the process would be the easiest thing to change.
I think you'd be had pressed to find any reasonable person that believes that the current tax process is a good idea. I'm personally a big fan of at least the basic premise of FairTax (read my review of The FairTax Book or buy your own copy). I think implementing something similar at a state level would not only be a great thing for the state but would also be a great thing in that it would be another example that the federal government could draw upon to prove the concept. I say another example because there are numerous states that do something that is in some respects very similar. The largest and most notable are Florida and Texas. Neither state has a state income tax and instead collects the majority of its revenues through sales and other taxes. I digress, though.
The best thing in my mind about a program similar to FairTax is that it removes the temptation from taxation. Taxation is a temptation for politicians, I believe. In my last post I talked about the different temptations that politicians undoubtedly face. Taxation may be the largest. Originally I think taxation was pure. The earliest revenues were used for building a federal infrastructure with legislative buildings and courthouses and beginning to assemble what is today the greatest national defense that the world has ever known. Some of our tax revenues still go to reasonable causes but so much doesn't anymore.
Today there are two main reasons that tax laws are passed. I don't remember if this came from The FairTax Book or another source or if I happened to assemble this. Regardless of the source, I've long believed this to be the case. The main reasons tax laws are passed today are to influence behavior and to buy votes. Think about that for a few minutes. Think of the different tax laws that you're familiar with. Homeowner's deduction. You save money on your taxes if you own a home. It's meant to encourage home ownership. Investerwords.com says, "The deduction is intended to encourage renters to become homeowners, under the belief that home ownership encourages upstanding citizenship and reduces crime." How about another one. Your 401k. 401kFocus.com says, "In order to encourage savings, the government created special tax advantages for 401k participants." Non-profit deductions are meant to encourage giving to charitable organizations. Student loans and interest deductibility are meant to encourage education. Get the picture? The government gives you a small financial reward for doing what it wants you to do.
The second reason, buying votes, is a little bit harder to get your arms around. Lets start with a relatively easy one: prescription drug coverage for seniors. This is not about whether it's a good idea or whether or not some seniors could use help paying for prescription drugs. God knows if my grandmother were still alive and needed help paying for prescription drugs I'd be working a second job now instead of writing this blog entry to help her pay for them. But take a step back for a second and remember - this is not about whether or not prescription drug coverage for seniors is a good idea. This is about whether or not it's an attempt by the government to buy votes. Now lets think this through. The basic way this program works is that a smaller amount of money is taken from every tax payer (roughly 280 million Americans that should be paying taxes) and redistributed to a much smaller number of seniors that are eligible for prescription drug coverage (less than 12 million enrolled as of 1/1/2006). If the government takes $50 each year from each person, most people aren't going to miss $50 over the course of a year. Especially not when it's automatically withheld from your paycheck and there's no clear easy way to see how much you paid or understand where it's going. That's another story, though. That $50 from 280 million people turns into almost $100 every month for 12 million seniors seeking prescription drug coverage. That extra $100 makes 12 million people very happy and therefore very eager to vote for you. 12 million people may or may not sound like a big number when you're talking about buying votes but the last 3 Presidential elections combined were decided by less than 12 million votes! 12 million is a HUGE number of votes.
Vote buying happens in other ways as well. The entire aspect of a progressive tax is meant to buy votes. The tax system that we have is called a progressive system. The more money you make - the higher the tax rate you pay. Your rate, in addition to the amount of taxes you pay, gets progressively higher. Think about it. The higher the annual income level, the fewer people who make it. More people make at least $10/hour than $15. More people make at least $15 than make at least $20. More people make at least $50 than make $100. The higher the income level of the people you raise taxes on the fewer people you affect. And raising taxes on fewer people gives you more money to spend on more people.
A concept like FairTax removes a politician from these temptations and as I've described previously, these have to be some very strong temptations. Any effort to reform and cleanup government would have to start with something like this. Remove from the equation not just all the headaches associated with the current process but also the temptations that the process places upon the politicians. Don't tempt them to influence your behavior or buy your vote.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
A Struggle for Significance
Everyone wants to feel that what they do is important. This is something I've dealt with before but it's really been weighing heavily on me the last 2-3 weeks. I'm a software consultant. I feel like I'm good at what I do. I have a good job with a good company. I'm paid well. I generally enjoy what I do. What does it matter in the grand scheme of things, though? Take the project I'm working on right now as an example. I'm helping a very large Fortune 500 company write an order entry system. Ultimately over 10k people will use this system. I'm the technical architect and the development lead for this project. I'm not exactly pushing paper in some windowless office or digging ditches only to refill it again. So why do I struggle with significance?
I think there are some meaningful things that I do. I think trying to be a good example to my kids is a good one. That's something that hopefully is lasting and of major impact. The relationships that I have with people is something of importance as well. How much time to I spend doing those things compared to the time that I spend working, though? It seems to pale in comparison to the time that I actually spend doing my job.
The best reason for these feelings that I can come up with is that I believe there are more important things in life. I think there's more that can be accomplished than building an order entry system for a bunch of people to use and save a big company a lot of time and money. There's more to life. What does that mean for my life, though? Am I supposed to be doing something else? Am I in the wrong line of work?
I think right now I'm where I'm supposed to be. I do think I'll eventually do something else, though. I have a deep appreciation for our nation. I think ultimately I'd like to take the time to either go to law school and become involved in Constitutional law or become politically active. I'm politically active to the extent I'm aware of what's going on by and large and I vote but I'm talking about becoming even more involved and potentially running for office one day. I think God has a long way to go to prepare me for that if that's where I'll ultimately be led, though.
Politics is a mess these days. Especially in Washington. The whole environment is just so full of contempt and corruption. I'm not so cynical to believe that all of these people were full of contempt and corruption when they arrived. I think the environment is just that tough. I'd like to say it's something I'd never give in to but I don't believe that. A philosopher once said you can never say with certainty what you would do in a situation unless you're in the situation. The idea behind that is that there are so many forces at work that we don't see and understand. There are so many temptations on these people that we on the outside can't fathom. I'm not so naive as to think I'd be immune to those temptations. I think God wants to make sure that if that's an environment that I'll be placed in that those aren't temptations that I would ever fall prey to. If I did then I'd be no better fit to serve and lead than the people who are in place there now.
Today in church our pastor's sermon was entitled "Living with Purpose: The Path to Significance." Does that mean anything? Only that it's something that God continues to deal with me about. I had a dream a week or so ago that I was the Governor of Georgia. Does that mean anything? I don't know.
I do believe that being in a position where I could speak to people would make me feel like I'm accomplishing a greater purpose. I'd love to be able to convey to people a message of freedom and hope. I'd love to be able work to make that a reality for so many people who today feel that politicians are so far removed from the people and their problems. I think I'd be as good a person as anyone to do that. I understand what I believe, why I believe it, and most importantly, I genuinely care and want to make a difference. I pray that as God gives me opportunities to make a difference I would be able to take advantage of them and serve Him well however big or small those opportunities may be.
I think there are some meaningful things that I do. I think trying to be a good example to my kids is a good one. That's something that hopefully is lasting and of major impact. The relationships that I have with people is something of importance as well. How much time to I spend doing those things compared to the time that I spend working, though? It seems to pale in comparison to the time that I actually spend doing my job.
The best reason for these feelings that I can come up with is that I believe there are more important things in life. I think there's more that can be accomplished than building an order entry system for a bunch of people to use and save a big company a lot of time and money. There's more to life. What does that mean for my life, though? Am I supposed to be doing something else? Am I in the wrong line of work?
I think right now I'm where I'm supposed to be. I do think I'll eventually do something else, though. I have a deep appreciation for our nation. I think ultimately I'd like to take the time to either go to law school and become involved in Constitutional law or become politically active. I'm politically active to the extent I'm aware of what's going on by and large and I vote but I'm talking about becoming even more involved and potentially running for office one day. I think God has a long way to go to prepare me for that if that's where I'll ultimately be led, though.
Politics is a mess these days. Especially in Washington. The whole environment is just so full of contempt and corruption. I'm not so cynical to believe that all of these people were full of contempt and corruption when they arrived. I think the environment is just that tough. I'd like to say it's something I'd never give in to but I don't believe that. A philosopher once said you can never say with certainty what you would do in a situation unless you're in the situation. The idea behind that is that there are so many forces at work that we don't see and understand. There are so many temptations on these people that we on the outside can't fathom. I'm not so naive as to think I'd be immune to those temptations. I think God wants to make sure that if that's an environment that I'll be placed in that those aren't temptations that I would ever fall prey to. If I did then I'd be no better fit to serve and lead than the people who are in place there now.
Today in church our pastor's sermon was entitled "Living with Purpose: The Path to Significance." Does that mean anything? Only that it's something that God continues to deal with me about. I had a dream a week or so ago that I was the Governor of Georgia. Does that mean anything? I don't know.
I do believe that being in a position where I could speak to people would make me feel like I'm accomplishing a greater purpose. I'd love to be able to convey to people a message of freedom and hope. I'd love to be able work to make that a reality for so many people who today feel that politicians are so far removed from the people and their problems. I think I'd be as good a person as anyone to do that. I understand what I believe, why I believe it, and most importantly, I genuinely care and want to make a difference. I pray that as God gives me opportunities to make a difference I would be able to take advantage of them and serve Him well however big or small those opportunities may be.
I'm Lazy
There are so many things that happen over the course of every week that I have opinions on. I don't know how one person could possibly end up with so many opinions. Somehow I never end up taking the time to post my opinons here, though. I'm just lazy.
I think it's very important to take the time to list out some of these opinions. There are several reasons why. Perhaps most importantly, taking the time to write out my opinions forces me to think through my opinions far more than what most people would normally do. This either causes me to consider angles that had previously not occurred to me and as a result change my opinion or it causes me to feel more certain about my conclusion. In either case I end up more comfortable with my opinion. I think it's also important from a historical standpoint to document what my beliefs are. I don't have the best memory in the world. The things that I remember I tend to remember with extreme clarify but there are a lot of issues that for whatever reason just don't stick in my mind long term. I'd like to be able to look back over time and see if my beliefs and opinions have changed and if so how. I think that will be very interesting to do years from now. Or even for my children to one day be able to see what their dad believed and why. I wonder what they'll think.
I think it's very important to take the time to list out some of these opinions. There are several reasons why. Perhaps most importantly, taking the time to write out my opinions forces me to think through my opinions far more than what most people would normally do. This either causes me to consider angles that had previously not occurred to me and as a result change my opinion or it causes me to feel more certain about my conclusion. In either case I end up more comfortable with my opinion. I think it's also important from a historical standpoint to document what my beliefs are. I don't have the best memory in the world. The things that I remember I tend to remember with extreme clarify but there are a lot of issues that for whatever reason just don't stick in my mind long term. I'd like to be able to look back over time and see if my beliefs and opinions have changed and if so how. I think that will be very interesting to do years from now. Or even for my children to one day be able to see what their dad believed and why. I wonder what they'll think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
