Regular Average People

Remembering Sept 11, 2001 - My Own Thoughts

2011-09-11T10:03:00.001-04:00

September 11, 2001 was one of those days where you remember even now ten years later exactly where you were, what you were doing, and what you thought, felt and said. In some ways it is hard to believe that it has been ten years.

For me, I'm sure just like everyone else, September 11, 2001 started out normally enough. I went to work at the CPA firm and was into my morning routine when a colleague who had come to work late due to a dentist appointment arrived and asked if any of us knew what was going on. None of us did.

A bunch of us crowded into his office as he had a radio (by this time all the Internet news sites were already crashed due to high volume) to find out what was happening. At that moment, it sounded like there had been a horrible accident in New York. I remember feeling sorry for those who had been killed and wondering to myself how such an accident could occur when our air traffic control system was so advanced. Everyone crowded into the small office was just about ready to return to work when the radio announcer started shouting that it had happened again. Another plane had crashed into the other World Trade Center tower.

In that instant, everything changed. I remember turning to the co-worker standing next to me and whispering (I guess because saying it aloud was too awful), "This isn't an accident. Someone is doing this."

I remember how chaotic the next several hours seemed. The news that a third plane had crashed into the Pentagon. The news that a fourth plane had crashed in Pennsylvania. The news (all of which later turned out to be untrue) that the Capitol Building was on fire, that the Washington Mall was on fire that the Washington Monument was on fire, the news that there were still eight more hijacked planes in the air, and so on. I remember saying to someone that it seemed like the whole world was coming apart all at once. I remember thinking to myself that this was how it felt to be attacked.

Then I remember the vulnerable feeling of looking out the windows of my office building (the tallest building in my city) and seeing the Federal Courthouse next door being evacuated and barricaded and watching all the government agencies that had offices in my building evacuating (DEA, US Attorney, Secret Service, etc.). All the government employees were evacuated, leaving behind the rest of us: insurance agents, accountants, a restaurant, a bank, etc. - the regular people to wonder if they knew something we didn't.

That was the other thing: getting news was so difficult. The Internet was down. All the news sites crashed. Virtually everything - actual news, speculations, rumors and greatest fears were being reported on the TV and on the radio because no one knew what was true and what wasn't - including the news organizations and reporters.

By the time I got home from work that evening, a lot had been sorted out, and were known to be facts. And the facts were very grim. But there are flashes of great hope for us as a country as well. When it was announced on TV that water was needed, people, businesses, corporations rushed so much water to the scene the TV announcers later asked that no more water be sent. Then canned food was needed. After a while, it was announced that no more canned food was needed. Then it was blood donations. Then the Red Cross had to announce that not everyone should give blood immediately because blood would be needed over the course of several weeks and they would need available donors later as well. There was something hopeful in the massive response. That we as people could put everything aside for that day and pull together when needed.

Today is appropriately a day of remembrance and sadness for those lost. Some people complain (myself included) that people forget too easily, that we don't remember what was done to us that day, etc., but as I pondered that this morning, I think as much as we have to reflect on what happened and face the future wiser because of the past, there is something hopeful in the fact that we have gone on about our business and our lives.

Doesn't this mean that the terrorists who wanted to destroy who we are on September 11, 2001 didn't accomplish their goal? Doesn't our response to the event in the days shortly following show that we are not who they claimed we are? And yet, doesn't the fact that many of us will spend our day today doing much the same thing we would have done 11 years ago today - a year before the attack happened - mean that their hatred also didn't change who we are? And doesn't that mean that in the end, we won after all?

The President's Birth Certificate - Why it Doesn't Matter, Part 3

2011-04-26T19:57:00.002-04:00

It is not disputed that President Obama's mother was born in Wichita, Kansas. Although I am an alumnus of the University of Missouri and therefore bitterly hate Kansas to my core, Kansas has been US soil since it became a state in 1861. It is safe to say that the President's mother was born after 1861 (she was born November 29, 1942) which would make her a US citizen at her birth simply because she was born on US soil.

Since she was a US citizen, it therefore does not matter who the President's father was, where he was from or where the President was in fact born. He could have been born on the moon and it wouldn't have mattered. His mother was a US citizen meaning that wherever he was born, he was a natural born US citizen as well.

So the President’s birth certificate and location of birth are completely irrelevant . . . unless he lied about it. If the President lied about where he was born, then the fact that he lied would be important, but the location of his birth would still not be relevant.

If the President did lie about the location of his birth, then he was badly misinformed and ill-advised to do so because as I have outlined here, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway. Myself, since it doesn’t matter and we have no conclusive evidence that the President was not born where he said he was, I say the whole matter should be dropped. We have real problems to deal with.

The President's Birth Certificate - Why it Doesn't Matter, Part 2

2011-04-20T06:35:00.001-04:00

There are two ways to be a "natural born" citizen of the United States. The first is by being born within the borders of the United States itself. This is why women sneak across the border to have their children born in a ditch on the side of the road. If the child is born on the US side of the border, that child is a natural born citizen of the United States.

The second way to be a natural born citizen of the United States is to be born to a US citizen. John McCain was not born within the borders of the United States. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone. However, he is a natural born citizen of the United States because both of his parents were US citizens. He was never a citizen of Panama. He was and is a natural born citizen of the United States.

Children born overseas at any of our military installations are natural born citizens even though they are not born within the borders of the United States as long as at least one of their parents was a US citizen at the time of their birth.

I lived overseas myself for a number of years. If I had had children born to me while living overseas, they would also be natural born US citizens regardless of the location of the hospital they were born in. They would be natural born citizens because I am a citizen.

The President's Birth Certificate - Why it Doesn't Matter, Part 1

2011-04-19T06:34:00.001-04:00

For several years now we have all heard the various arguments and rumblings about whether President Obama was really born in Hawaii or not. Donald Trump has again brought the issue to the forefront by recent interviews on television leading up to what many say will be his own announcement that he plans to run for the Office of President.

That people continue to question where President Obama was born is not all that surprising. Once people get hung up on something, they tend to stick to it - whether there are reliable facts to the contrary or not. What surprises me is that no one has yet pointed out that where the President was born is completely irrelevant to his meeting the constitutional qualifications to run for the Office of President.

Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

Obviously, President Obama was not a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution (none of us now alive were). However, he is and has always been a natural born citizen of the United States and his location of birth does not change that.

Kudos to My State of Birth, Part 4

2010-11-11T06:20:00.001-05:00

So now that the background is set . . . what happened this past weekend?

Well, a young Sgt. First Class C.J. Sadell was killed in October while serving in Afghanistan. His funeral was held this past weekend. He was 34 years old and left behind a wife and two small kids. And wouldn't you know, that awful Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, KS decided to show up and protest at his funeral.

Well, when the town of Weston, MO found out that Westboro Baptist was going to show up at the funeral, they planned their own event to stop them. Several hundered people (more than 24% of the town's total population!) showed up early to form a human shield to stop the church from being able to protest at the funeral.

They arrived early in separate vehicles in order to take up all of the town's parking spaces so there would be no where for the arriving Westboro Church to park anywhere near the cemetary where the funeral was to be held.

Then they held their own peaceful protest against the church's actions by holding up signs of support for the grieving family and loads of American flags. One flag was so very large and place strategically so that the family would not have to see the church members with their hateful signs.

When the church saw the town's turnout in support for the family, they quickly gave up and went home. While I still believe that the Supreme Court would be justified in allowing the church to protest within restrictions (not within so much time before or after a funeral) and within space (not within so many feet of a funeral), what a way for a town to show that this sort of awful behavior is not welcome.

Hooray for Weston! I've rarely seen a finer example of regular, average people and what we stand for. While we continue to wait for the Supreme Court to make their decision, let's continue make sure that we, the regular, average people have the courage to stand up for what is right!

Kudos to My State of Birth, Part 3

2010-11-10T06:17:00.001-05:00

The story goes like this: a person is attacked by robbers and left for dead on the side of the road. A priest came along and seeing the injured person, went to the other side of the road and went on by. Then a religious person came along and seeing the dying person lying by the side of the road, he also went to the other side of the road and passed on by. Finally, a Samaritan came along and felt compassion for the hurting person and took care of him. Jesus finishes the story by asking, "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?" It is clear that Jesus didn't just want people to take care of and love the people who lived within so many feet of a person's front door - He wanted people to love and take care of all people, including strangers.

The people of Westboro Baptist Church are therefore NOT following the teachings of Jesus to love their neighbor - which encompasses all people including those they are currently protesting against. What would Jesus teach that they should do for these grieving military families? Well, the Samaritan in the story Jesus told provided for the medical care of the man who had been attacked, paid for lodging until the man could recover and return to his home and paid for his food until he was well again. So I suppose in today's terms that would mean that this church would provide meals to the family who lost their loved one, they would help defray funeral costs and perhaps provide or pay for grief counseling for the family - particularly the children as most of our service personnel are young and many leave behind small children. THAT would be the "Christian" thing to do because by His own words, that is what Jesus said to do.

However, the members of Westboro Baptist Church are spreading messages of hate and anger as evidenced by their own signs that they hold up during their protests. They are clearly NOT loving their neighbor and have, therefore, misappropriated the word "Christian" because their actions do not at all reflect the attitudes or teachings of Jesus. A person's faith, or lack thereof, is between himself and God and no one can step in and judge that. However, we can definitively say that the ACTIONS of the members of Westboro Baptist Church do not follow those of Jesus and are, therefore, not "Christian."

Kudos to My State of Birth, Part 2

2010-11-09T06:15:00.003-05:00

The ACLU: Since Missouri's law is clearly unconstitutional, the ACLU stepped in to represent the Westboro Baptist Church asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule Missouri's law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court deferred (for now) to the state to sort it out. Basically, if Missouri changes their law to match that of Ohio's or any number of other states with similar laws, the case will end. As it is now though, the law is not constitutional and will eventually be overturned one way or another.

The Right Thing to Do: the right thing to do is for this church to stop, of its own accord, this deplorable behavior. They claim to be "Christians." Is that an accurate claim? I looked up "Christian" in the dictionary and it says: "a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ" and "belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ."

If a "Christian" is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus and seeks to pattern their behavior after Him, then we have to look at what it was that Jesus taught in order to determine whether this church and their behavior is truly "Christian." In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is asked by a lawyer what a person must do in order to go to Heaven. Jesus replied by asking what the Law (the first five books of today's Old Testament in the Bible) said to do. The lawyer answered: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." Jesus then told the lawyer that this is what he should do.

The lawyer, however, perhaps being as lawyers are, persisted by asking, "And who is my neighbor?" He wanted Jesus to give him a measurement by which he could define who his neighbors were and therefore be kind and loving to those people so as to follow the letter of the law. Jesus, though, wanted him to see the spirit of the law and replied by telling the story of the Good Samaritan.

Kudos to My State of Birth, Part 1

2010-11-08T06:41:00.002-05:00

While I no longer live in the state of Missouri, I was so proud over the weekend to have been from there. But before I get into what made me so proud of my "Show Me State" roots, I want to re-visit an issue from more than a year ago to make sure this weekend's event is placed in the proper context.

SO . . . below is the republished text of an article I wrote well over a year ago when the issue first came to national attention . . .

The Church: The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS travels around the country to the funerals of US soldiers protesting gays in the military. They accomplish this by holding up signs that say "God Hates You" or "Your Son Is In Hell" and various other awful things. While they are protesting gays in the military, the funerals at which they protest are all for heterosexual individuals as under current law, military personnel are not allowed to disclose that they are homosexuals and remain in the military. So the heterosexual widows/widowers, surviving children and parents of heterosexual members of the US military have become the object of protests and hatred by this church that opposes homosexuals serving quietly in the military as they are not allowed, under current law, to serve openly.

The Missouri Law: Nearly every state has had to pass laws restricting the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church so that grieving families can bury their service members in peace. Ohio, for example, has a law that allows people to protest military funerals, but only a certain number of yards away from the funeral service and not for an hour before or an hour after the service time. This law is constitutional in that it allows for peaceful assembly, which is a constitutional right, but also rightfully restricts that assembly so as to allow families to be able to hold a funeral service in peace. Missouri, however, bungled up their law. The Missouri law simply says that you can't protest at funerals, which eliminates the constitutional right to protest peacefully. As state law cannot take away rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the law is unconstitutional.

The Teeter Totter is Broken and Both Ends Are on the Ground, Part 7

2010-11-03T06:27:00.001-04:00

Why would anyone do that? PAY the government for the privilege to loan money to it? Well, if you think inflation is going to go up, then the amount the government owes you back will also go up which reverses what you paid to the government to loan them the money.

For every bit that inflation goes up, you get back a little bit of what you paid them for the privilege to loan the money to them. If inflation goes up a lot, you get it all back plus some more. If inflation goes up an enormous amount, then you make out like a bandit.

So the fact that people are doing this . . . paying the government for the privilege to loan money to it . . . means that they expect inflation to increase at least significantly and perhaps enormously. High inflation has never led to economic recovery or success.

So what do people think about the economic future of the country? All signs point to a mess for quite a while. Negative indicators abound. Economic optimism is perhaps at an all time low as indicated by the negative yield on TIPS bonds. Again, the teeter totter is broken and both ends are on the ground.

The Teeter Totter is Broken and Both Ends Are on the Ground, Part 6

2010-11-02T06:17:00.001-04:00

Another thing that defies textbooks. On October 26 (last week) the Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) sold for the first time ever with a negative yield. What exactly does that mean?

TIPS are bonds that adjust for inflation. As inflation goes up, the principal goes up. As inflation goes down, the principal goes down. This provides a hedge or protection against inflation. So what does it mean that they sold at a negative yield?

It means that investors paid interest TO the government in order to lend money to the government instead of the government paying money to the investors to borrow money. It would be the same thing as if you went to your bank and said you wanted to take out a car loan but instead of you paying the bank interest on your loan, the bank instead loaned you the money and then also paid YOU interest just for the privilege to loan the money to you.

This is obviously one of those things the textbooks say can't happen, but it is happening. Welcome to the new reality.

The Teeter Totter is Broken and Both Ends Are on the Ground, Part 5

2010-11-01T06:22:00.003-04:00

And it just gets worse. Ask anyone how they feel about the economic future and it doesn't look good. People are worried about jobs and inflation and the national debt which is growing almost exponentially on a daily basis. In an economy reliant on consumer spending, worry doesn't bode well for anyone.

The truth is, there are things happening in our economy today that just 10 years ago my college textbooks said was impossible. For an example, we don't have to look any farther than the housing market.

Textbooks say that house prices and mortgage rates are two end of a teeter totter. When one goes up, the other goes down. When mortgage rates go down, house prices go up. When mortgage rates go up, house prices have to come down to compensate. It all made sense in the reality of 10 years ago.

Now you have today. Mortgage rates are lower than they have been in decades and house prices are too. How can both end of a teeter totter be down at the same time? The teeter totter is broken and both ends are on the ground. The economy is in the same shape.

The Teeter Totter is Broken and Both Ends Are on the Ground, Part 4

2010-10-29T06:35:00.001-04:00

The fact of the matter is, at this point it doesn't really matter whose fault it is. We all know that the economy has been in utter shambles for well over two years now and while economists may be saying that the "Great Recession" is officially over, does anyone feel good about that?

No! Unemployment is still staggeringly high and the outlook isn't good. There are millions of people who have now been unemployed for well over a year now. The average length of time it takes to find a job has gone from less than eight weeks to a shocking well over eight months.

The housing market has been in steady decline for about five years now. There were a few positive signs when the government offered tax credits for first-time home buyers, but as soon as the tax credits expired, the housing market slumped again to lower than it was before the credits. And then when home buyers found out that they had to pay those credits back, they realized that it wasn't really a credit at all – just a temporary loan. And as the market has continued to decline, many of these home buyers who took advantage of those tax credits, now already find themselves under water on their newly purchased homes.

The Teeter Totter is Broken and Both Ends Are on the Ground, Part 3

2010-10-28T06:30:00.001-04:00

In these fraud cases, the government was at best complicit. However, in other situations, the government is actually at fault for our economic woes. Take the housing market for example.

Under President Clinton, lending requirements were loosened and banks were "encouraged" in a very strong way to lend more money to lower income families and first-time home buyers. The goal, however noble, was to increase home ownership among minorities.

This is truly an admirable goal, but clearly the government went about it in all the wrong ways. If we want to increase home ownership among minorities, we need to first increase the wealth held by minorities. This is primarily achieved by increasing the average level of education among minorities. That should be our first goal. If we educate people, the money will follow as will home ownership and health insurance and everything else.

We can't just lower our banking standards so people who didn't previously qualify for a loan now do so they can buy a home that they can't afford. This was clearly the wrong way to try and achieve the goal because in the process, our country's entire banking system was nearly completely collapsed when people who should not have had loans in the first place defaulted.

The Teeter Totter is Broken and Both Ends Are on the Ground, Part 2

2010-10-27T06:24:00.004-04:00

The truth is that the economy had been in trouble for some time, but the signs were either ignored or covered up. And while the government today loves to loudly beret Wall Street executives for their part in the mess, the government was at best complicit in the legs falling out from under the economy while no one knew about it and in some cases, the government is actually at fault.

We are all well familiar with the much publicized fraud cases that the government has prosecuted over the past two years. Bernie Madoff has perhaps been the most well-known of these cases, but there are many, many others where outright fraud was involved in the company's collapse. In each of these cases, just like the Madoff case, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had routinely examined these organizations and found no cause to investigate in spite of repeated complaints by clients or others in the industry.

In other cases, the SEC did investigate but found no wrongdoing. Seriously?! As a CPA, I find this simply hard to believe. In fact, I see it only one of two ways: either the SEC hired the dumbest, least skeptical, most trusting people on the planet and then did nothing in the way of training to equip them to detect fraud OR the SEC examiners were in on the scheme and got paid for looking the other way. I simply cannot believe that they couldn't figure out something was wrong. A lot of other people without subpoena powers or open access to records figured it out!

The Teeter Totter is Broken and Both Ends Are on the Ground, Part 1

2010-10-26T06:19:00.002-04:00

My husband and I got married Sept. 5, 2008. It was an extremely small, immediate family only wedding so a week later on Sept. 13 we held an open house at our home for extended family and friends to come by and celebrate with us. We left the next morning, Sept. 14 for our honeymoon in Fiji. We spent 10 days in Fiji where we had no access to phone, email, TV or internet.

When we got back home, we heard on the radio that the President was addressing the nation that night. We wondered what for? Imagine our shock to discover that the financial meltdown had all happened while we were gone. When we left for our honeymoon on Sept. 15, the world was all OK. When we came back 10 days later, the "Great Recession" was in full force.

I am a CPA and licensed investment advisor. My husband is a CFP and licensed investment advisor. We were appalled to discover the Lehman Brothers no longer existed. Bear Stearns was gone. AIG was bankrupt and so was Merrill Lynch. How could all of this have happened so fast?

Dealing With the Government - AUGH!!!, Part 3

2010-10-15T06:03:00.002-04:00

Since we were stuck sending a check, which we had tried before with no luck, I asked if there was a phone number we could call. I was hoping to get a live person so I could send the check to their attention in hopes that they would be looking for it and get it deposited.

Our Financial Aid department called the ONLY phone number on the VA's financial aid website and was told that they weren't allowed to call and ask questions. All questions had to be submitted through the website. Seriously?! Why would people call the number at all if they didn't have questions? Do they have the number so people can call just to say hi?

So we submitted the question through the website as directed and never received an answer. We've submitted several questions through this website over the past many, many months and have never received an answer.

At this point, I gave up and just mailed the check again. We exhausted all of our options trying to get the government to deposit the check that we are required by law to send them! And since the government is $13.5 trillion in debt you'd think they would deposit the check quickly since they clearly need the money!

Dealing with the Government - AUGH!!!, Part 2

2010-10-13T06:26:00.002-04:00

It isn't simple.

As required, we cut a check back to the Department of Veterans Affairs to return the funds to them for two students who chose not to enroll in classes. Four months later and we are still waiting on the VA to cash the check. At this point we don't even know if the bank will take the check.

We have had this problem before with the VA not depositing checks for months and months and months on end. So I put a stop payment on the check and cut a new check to send to them in hopes that this one would get deposited. However, I checked with our Financial Aid department to see if anyone there knew any "tricks" to get the VA to deposit the check this time. I also checked into whether we could wire the money back figuring that if I could prove that I sent the money back as required by law, then whether the VA actually knew they had the money or not was their problem.

It turned out that you can't wire money back to the VA unless you are returning the entire amount of all VA financial aid for all students. Seriously?! Under what circumstances would ALL of our students decide not to enroll for classes? That's not really even a viable option!

So we were stuck sending a check.

Dealing With the Government - AUGH!!!, Part 1

2010-10-12T06:02:00.003-04:00

Ronald Reagan once famously said, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!”

I had a personal run-in with the federal government this past week that has made Ronald Reagan seem like a prophet! I work for a university that receives large sums of federal money for student financial aid. The particular issue last week had to do with the Department of Veteran Affairs.

We have a large number of students who are current or former military and therefore qualify for the GI Bill. When they enroll for classes, we submit to the Department of Veterans Affairs for their financial aid. The money comes in by wire transfer from the VA and applied to the student’s account.

However, if the student later decides not to attend class, to drop out or does not enroll in enough classes to be considered a full-time student, part or all of the money for that student must be returned by the university to the VA so the funds can be credited back to the student’s GI Bill account as they were not used. Later, should the student decide to re-enroll in school, the funds will then be available to them for use to pay for higher education.

Sounds pretty simple, right?

More Oil Spill Mess

2010-06-04T07:27:00.000-04:00

The oil spill continues in the Gulf of Mexico and the federal government has taken up a new tactic – continuing to remind everyone that all this mess is BP’s fault but stating on an almost daily basis that the federal government is in charge of the situation and is telling BP what to do.

Seriously?!? After a month and a half of oil spilling into the Gulf, killing wildlife, destroying beaches and wrecking the fishing industry, all the government can say is that it is in charge but it is all BP’s fault? As I’ve written before, the public doesn’t care anymore. We all knew a very long time ago that BP was the owner of the well that was spilling the oil and being reasonably well educated we figured that the federal government was involved in making sure that all of this got cleaned up.

None of this matters anymore. What matters is that after six weeks the oil is still gushing out and apparently nothing being done about it. We don’t care anymore who owns the well. We don’t care anymore who is in charge. We really don’t care anymore whose fault it is. WE JUST WANT IT TO STOP!

I think this is turning into more and more of a problem for the Obama Administration. The Bush Administration was rightly criticized for its sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and I suspect that this oil spill is going to turn into a similar situation for the Obama Administration. Very little has been done. Very little has been said about the spill itself and virtually nothing is being done to help the communities affected by the disaster.

To the federal government: HELLO! WE NEED HELP OUT HERE. We don’t need anyone else to tell us who is in charge or who is at fault or who is investigating the whole mess. We just need the oil spill to stop, to be cleaned up and for business and tourism and fishing to be restored. COULD YOU PLEASE GET SOMEONE ON THAT RIGHT AWAY?

The Administration and the Second Senate Seat Scandal, Part 2

2010-06-03T07:26:00.000-04:00

So what is all the fuss all about with former President Clinton’s reported job offer to Congressman Joe Sestak?

Well, it is illegal in this country to tamper or try to affect the outcome of an election. This includes offering jobs to individuals running for public office to get them to drop out of the race. Now, in practice do people drop out of campaigns and then later given jobs in the winner’s administration? Of course. The real determining factor is whether the person dropped out of their own volition and then later and unrelated to their leaving the race, were offered a job for which they were qualified to fill and accepted the job. This is an entirely different thing.

So exactly what happened with Congressman Sestak? No one yet knows. Was he offered a paying job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race? If so, then the law was clearly broken and it will have to be investigated who all was involved in breaking the law. President Clinton certainly was involved and since the law making it illegal to offer jobs to individuals in exchange for their dropping out of a race bears his signature from when he was President, he certainly must have known that the law was being broken.

Then the question becomes who authorized the job offer and who asked the former President to make the job offer? Again, Rahm Emanuel must have been involved and perhaps even President Obama himself.

Did they do anything wrong? We don’t yet know. The President’s own lawyer says they did nothing wrong, but it is his job to say that. As stated in yesterday’s post, it is little wonder the public is skeptical of that statement.

I believe an independent investigation is warranted to discover exactly what happened. It should not be a witch-hunt because we don’t yet know if anyone did anything wrong. However, we do need to know if the law was broken and if so, who broke it and who knew about it. The public has a right to know this information because in this country, the public holds the power not the government. The Democrats should not try to avoid the investigation or to interfere with it. Such interference only makes them look guilty when in fact we don’t yet know if anything wrong actually took place.

The Administration and the Second Senate Seat Scandal, Part 1

2010-06-02T07:26:00.000-04:00

Just a few months after Senator Obama had been sworn in as President Obama, a scandal erupted over Govenor Blagojevich’s apparent auctioning of Obama’s Senate seat off to the highest bidder. Apparently there were several takers on the scam including Represenative Jackson, Rev. Jesse Jackson’s son.

The FBI is investigating and perhaps a couple of years from now we’ll have a long drawn out court case and a few people will be sent to prison for their part in this taudry story. If Blagojevich goes to jail, he will join several former govenors from the state of Illinois. Such is the way politics works in the state of Illinois. The FBI was quick to state that President Obama himself was not involved in the plot to “sell” the Senate seat, but it becomes more muddy as to whether members of his staff – particularly Rahm Emanuel – were involved or not.

Now the Administration is embroiled in a new controversey – this time over an apparent job offer the White House made to Congressman Joe Sestak to try and get him to drop out of the Senate race in Pennsylvania to protect Arlen Spector’s seat. The Congressman did not drop out of the race and eventually beat the sitting Senator Spector in the primary race. Apparently the White House wanted Spector to retain the seat and wanted all challengers to back out of the race.

So, as recent disclosures have let us know, the administration asked former President Bill Clinton to meet with Sestak to offer him a job. It remains unclear what job was offered and whether it was a paying job or not. Republicans are clamoring that this is illegal and are asking for an investigation. The White House counsel’s office said that they have investigated the incident and that there was no wrongdoing. This is like the crack dealer caught red-handed saying that he didn’t know anyone was cooking crack in his basement. The cops don’t tend to believe this which is why the American people are equally skeptical.

I suspect that the Republicans will continue to call for an independent investigation – again by the FBI – into exactly what happened with this job offer. So what is this all about?

Memorial Day Mistake

2010-06-01T14:08:00.000-04:00

President Obama decided to spend Memorial Day in his home state of Illinois where he intended to give a speech at a local Memorial Day celebration but the speech was cancelled due to heavy rain. When he flew back to Washington DC later that evening, he made some “Memorial Day remarks” since his speech was cancelled earlier in the day. The whole thing seems poorly handled to me.

The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military and while he is a civilian, he holds the highest military office in our country. On a holiday dedicated to remembering the sacrifice of military personnel and honoring their sacrifice, the President was very obviously absent.

It is tradition for the President to attend a ceremony at Arlington Cemetary and lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns. It is extremely rare for the President not to attend this event and given that we are currently fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems inappropriate at best that the President chose not to attend the event. Yes, Vice President Joe Biden was there, gave a nice speech and laid the wreath in the President’s absence, it was conspicuous that the President himself was not there.

The National Memorial Day Parade snaked its way through the streets of the nation’s capital today and again, the President wasn’t there. The ceremony at Arlington Cemetary somberly came to a close and again, the President wasn’t there. And the remarks upon returning to Washington DC? Seemed a little late and obligatory rather than in honor of all our veterans and their sacrifice.

I believe this was a mistake on the President’s part and showed a lack of respect on his part for the holiday and its meaning. I understand that he wanted a vacation with his family like everyone else, but when you are the President of the United States and hold the highest military office in the country, you don’t get to skip the events honoring the military. It is my sincere hope that the President will realize his mistake and be present at next year’s festivities.

Where is the Help?, Part 4

2010-05-28T07:31:00.000-04:00

The government continues to state that BP is responsible for the mess, but at the same time is forcing BP to focus all of its energies on stopping the leak. Which is probably where they do need to focus their efforts, but SOMEONE needs to help the people who are being affected by the mess. Shouldn’t this be the government’s responsibility?

And finally, what has the government done to help stop the leak itself? BP has obviously tried everything it can think of and has hired 70 people to do nothing but collect ideas from the public on how to try and stop it.

Celebrities such as Kevin Costner have invested millions of their own money trying to invent machines or equipment or whatever to help. Thousands of people have made suggestions. Thousands more are trying to invent things in their garages to help address the situation.

And the government? The government simply continues to remind us that the well belonged to BP. WE KNOW THAT! THANK YOU. What are you DOING to address the situation? So far, in my opinion, not a thing.

I find the whole situation a little mind boggling. If this oil spill had happened on land, the EPA, FEMA and probably several other federal agencies would show up, clear the area and start to work on the cleanup. People would be relocated if necessary. Whatever needed to be done would be done.

So why is the government not doing the same thing with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Again, no one seems to know and it is entirely unacceptable.

Where is the Help?, Part 3

2010-05-27T07:31:00.000-04:00

It is not the company’s job to police itself, it is the GOVERNMENT’S responsibility to make sure that appropriate safety measures are in place.

And while it took a week for FEMA to show up in New Orleans to help address the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it has now been more than a month and the federal government still hasn’t shown up to DO anything.

Robert Gibbs was asked a couple of days ago in a television interview if this event could be “this administration’s Katrina” and he claimed that the federal government had been there from the very beginning. However, when asked what the government was doing, he said “gathering information.”

President Obama has also formed a “bi-partisan commission to investigate” the spill and to determine what happened. I recognize that at some point this is probably a good idea. We do need to figure out what happened and find ways to prevent it from happening again.

However, I think at this moment ALL efforts should be focused on getting the leak stopped! Seriously?! The government is “gathering information” and “investigating” while countless animals are dying and millions of people are finding their ability to feed their families severely affected.

We’ve seen federal officials (including the President himself) touring the area by helicopter, plane and boat. But so far, everywhere the report is that no one knows what to do and no one is in charge of coordinating cleanup efforts, and no one is anywhere helping the people affected by this diaster to get their lives back.

Where is the Help?, Part 2

2010-05-26T07:31:00.000-04:00

What has the government done about it?

Well, every spokesperson for the government has made it clear that they blame BP for the spill and are always careful in every press conference to mention BP several times. By the second day of the spill everyone knew that it was BP’s well that was spewing the oil into the Gulf.

No one cares anymore. It has been more than a month. The oil continues to pour into the Gulf and the government is still doing nothing but telling us that it was BP’s fault. How does this help us?

We KNOW that is was a BP well. In spite of the fact that the government hasn’t mentioned it, we also know that the federal government is responsible for inspecting these operations and for certifying their safety for not only the workers on the rig, but also for the environment.

The government issues permits for the wells to be drilled. The government certifies that the appropriate safety equipment is in place and functioning properly. The government also certifies that appropriate equipment is in place to deal with a spill should it happen. So exactly whose fault is it?

The government is quick to point out that the reason efforts to stop the spill have been hampered so far is because the well is in such deep water. The implication is that BP shouldn’t have been drilling in that deep of water. But the only reason BP was drilling there was because the government gave them a permit to do so!

The government is also quick to point out that BP is using untried and unproven methods to try to deal with this spill implying that the company should have figured out something to deal with an event like this prior to drilling the well. But that’s like saying that street gangs should somehow find a way to make the bullets they fire at each other non-lethal!

Where is the Help?, Part 1

2010-05-25T07:31:00.000-04:00

Is the Gulf Coast of the United States being abandoned again by the federal government of the United States?

Back in the fall of 2005, when Hurricane Katrina devasted the Gulf Coast, the government was was severely criticized for its sluggish response to the disaster. Both at the time and still now, I believed this criticism was well deserved.

Isn’t it the responsibility of the federal government to step in when the lives, safety and livelihoods of Americans are threatened? When the government fails in this, it should be criticized and held accountable for failing to do its job.

But isn’t the same thing happening again to the Gulf Coast? The BP oil spill is now the worst ever in history and is threatening the environment not only of the Gulf of Mexico, but also that of most of the Gulf Coast states. The livelihoods of many thousands of fisherman are threatened in what is already horrible economic times for them and their families.

Millions of lives are being affected. Revenues are down in the tourism industry which affects tax revenues of thousands of cities and towns. Hotel and restaurant revenues are down. Hotels, restaurants, gas stations, miniture golf places – all were struggling to stay open due to the economy BEFORE the oil spill happened.

Now it is all that much more difficult. People are cancelling their vacations to the Gulf Coast beaches because they don’t want to spend their vacation on a beach covered in thick brown oil. And who would blame them? The results are devastasting for the Gulf Coast states, their economies and their environments. And what has the government done about it?

Thailand Revisited, Part 6

2010-05-24T07:56:00.000-04:00

If tenure has to go, what about protecting the teachers?

I am not unsympathetic to the situation that led to tenure in the first place where more experienced teachers were let go and replaced with inexperienced ones because the salaries were lower. I do not dispute that there needs to be a way to protect the experienced teachers from just being replaced simply because they have become expensive. Teachers should be paid for their experience just like any other professional who is paid more for their years of experience.

If teachers were either state or federal employees, this problem would be reduced because the school district isn’t paying the salaries, the state or federal government is. However, if the school districts still retained the power to hire and fire teachers, then school districts could get rid of bad teachers and keep the great ones without having to look at their budget. The decision would instead be based solely on whether the teacher was doing a good job.

This way the great teachers would keep their jobs and the bad ones would have to find something else to do because no one wanted to hire them, and this is exactly what we want them to do. We don’t want bad teachers staying in classrooms. We want them to find new employment doing something else. The good teachers would be protected from being replaced by younger, cheaper teachers because those making the decision to keep them or not don’t have to pay the salary. The school districts don’t have to try and find room in their budget to pay good teachers either because the teachers are actually paid by the state or federal government. In this way, everyone wins. The teachers win. The schools win. The students win.

Education is so important because as we have seen, only an educated population can really live free. Democracy is difficult and requires educated people who know of and value their rights so they can’t be bribed en mass to vote for a particular candidate. If our education level declines, then we will see more and more of the problems that face Thailand in its many attempts to implement a democratically elected form of government. The best way to protect our form of government is to do whatever we can to raise the level of education in our society.

If we look back in history, it is the uneducated who are able to be exploited for long periods of time. In Nazi Germany, an educated population was fooled by Adolf Hitler’s message of peace and prosperity, but many of them quickly wised up to his true aims. Once they were aware of what was going on, many of them started planning ways to assassinate Hitler. Military officers, church bishops, professionals, factory workers – all types – participated in hiding and protecting the Jews from Hitler’s Final Solution and also participated in plots to kill him. Educated people can’t be fooled forever.

By contrast, how did the Deep South manage to keep slaves for such a long number of years? They made it illegal to teach a slave to read or to educate them in any way. Why? Because anyone who was at all educated could plainly see what they were doing was wrong. They rightly feared that if slaves were educated, they would rise up and demand their freedom on the basis that all human beings have a right to be free as clearly stated by our own Declaration of Independence. Only uneducated people can be repressed for long periods of time.

Henry Peter Brougham said, “Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern but impossible to enslave.” If we want to continue to live free, then we have got to reform our education system such that we raise the general level of education in this country.

Thailand Revisited, Part 5

2010-05-21T07:56:00.000-04:00

Again, this is going to make all of the teachers mad, but in order to truly re-vamp the education system we must get rid of teacher tenure. It absolutely has got to go. But again, for all those teachers out there, stick with me to the end. I am proposing making your profession more respectable which will have many rewards, but yes, will involve some risk.

Teaching is one of if not the only profession where after a period of time, you cannot be fired for virtually any reason. While this may seem ridiculous, let’s start at the beginning. The reason tenure came to be is because, in an effort to save money, school districts were simply firing teachers who had been around for several years and replacing them with younger, inexperienced teachers because they could pay them a lower salary. Experienced teachers then had a difficult time finding a job because they had so many years of experience and were too expensive to hire. Obviously both the teachers and the students suffered when qualified, excellent teachers were let go simply because a new teacher with no experience at all was cheaper.

In response, teachers’ unions got through the concept of tenure which meant that after a certain number of years (depending on the state) the teachers couldn’t be fired unless it was for gross misconduct. While on the surface this seems to help teachers, it really harms them. Teachers have been told for years by their unions that tenure helps them but I truly believe it hurts teachers. Here’s why.

We now have a system where virtually any idiot can become a teacher. Obtaining an education degree and a teaching license has become a literal joke. Because so many people in the teaching profession got there either because they flunked out of other majors or simply because they never did make up their mind about what they wanted to do for a living and just “drifted” into the education program, teacher quality is poor at best. In response, teachers get paid a pitiful salary and tenure ensures that the school districts can’t get rid of teachers that aren’t any good at teaching.

As a result, being a teacher no longer is considered a position of respect in American culture. Teachers used to be widely respected and, simply because they were the teacher, were considered an important member of community leadership. However, in our attempt to get more people into the teaching profession, we have allowed anyone in and have so lowered the standards to become a teacher, the profession no longer commands any respect. Teachers are simply those who can’t do anything else. Hence the saying, “If you can’t do, teach.”

If we are to raise the standards for becoming a teacher, and thereby raise the profession several notches to its previous level of respect, we have to not only raise the education standards required for teachers and raise their salaries, but we also have to allow school districts to fire teachers who aren’t doing a good job. Only if school districts are able to get rid of underperforming teachers will the profession be able to return to its once vaunted status. As such, tenure has got to go.

What about protecting the teachers though?

Thailand Revisited, Part 4

2010-05-20T07:56:00.000-04:00

How do we go about making it more difficult to become a teacher?

I believe, in addition to re-vamping education programs at every college and university in the country, we also need to implement a serious licensing exam like accountants and lawyers and medical professionals take. We really don’t want the lowest performing college students entering our classrooms and teaching our kids, but that is exactly what we now have. So how do we attract top talent?

We have to find a way to pay teachers a LOT more money. The reason the top students on college campuses these days go into engineering or business or law or medicine is that they have the potential to earn a lot of money. If a teacher got paid what a lawyer did, more of the top tier students would go into education. If we both re-vamp the education program to make it more difficult to get a degree in education AND also had salaries that competed with engineering, accounting, medical or law professionals, then we would have high quality graduates coming out of the education programs at universities across the country and therefore, high quality teachers entering our classrooms.

The fact that teachers get paid almost nothing means that the School of Education was made up of the following people: a few who really want to be teachers (this was my college friend and she was an excellent teacher) and a whole bunch of those who flunk out of every other major on campus (we don’t want these people in the education program at all). This is not going to consistently produce quality teachers. I’m not saying that there will be no one of quality because of course this is not true. I had and have known many excellent teachers in my lifetime and I am indebted to all of them, but the current system of poor education programs at colleges and universities and a horrible salary structure has not and will never produce excellent teachers on a consistent basis.

I believe that the education profession needs to be raised several notches to place it on par with other professions such as law, accounting, engineering, medicine, etc. This will mean that education majors will no longer be able to have the lowest GPA on campus or take final exams consisting of jumping rope and making posters. However, it also means that teachers will have the opportunity to earn a very high salary like other professions. I think this will produce quality teachers on a consistent basis and that is what we desperately need.

How do we pay teachers more? Honestly, I’m not sure. Perhaps it would be beneficial to make them state employees instead of school district employees? The state would be able to pay them a higher salary than the school district would plus it would give them access to better benefits (medical, retirement, etc.). Maybe this could even be taken one step farther by making teachers federal employees? This would provide even better benefits and certainly a higher salary. Goodness knows that the government has enough lawyers on the payrolls so we’ve found a way to make it work for that profession. Surely we can make it work for teachers.

As it is, we are short of teachers so we have lowered the expectations in hopes of getting more teachers into the system. This is exactly the opposite, in my opinion, of what we need to do. If there is a shortage of teachers, then we need to raise expectations and raise earning power (salaries) so that we can attract bright students and young professionals away from other professions into teaching. This is how we not only get MORE teachers, but also higher quality ones. Instead we have lowered the bar so far that anyone can become a teacher and that is NOT what we want.

This is complicated though by one much-debated thing: tenure. How does teacher tenure fit into all of this?

Thailand Revisited, Part 3

2010-05-19T07:56:00.000-04:00

So, in practical terms, how do we go about improving our schools?

I think we can start off by consolidating some schools. In the county I grew up in, there were three high schools. Two of these schools had a graduating class each year of three or four students. The entire high school had about fifteen students total! This is ridiculous. These schools had to have facilities which required staff, maintenance, utilities, etc. as well as teachers, books, school buses, offices, and so on all for fifteen students. The other high school, the one I went to, had around four hundred students in the high school. We would have needed no additional teachers, facilities, classrooms, school buses, staff – anything – if these other two high schools had been consolidated with ours. We would have added about thirty students and that would have been it.

Small schools, such as those that still exist in the county I grew up in, have so much overhead they are just too expensive to keep open. We must consolidate school districts and do away with these tiny schools that are just WAY too expensive to run. This will reduce costs and at the same time, improve the quality of education. I am confident that this problem is not confined to rural counties in the state of Missouri. I am sure that if a thorough review were done, there are many schools that could be consolidated in order to save costs without dramatically increasing the amount of time it takes for children to get to school in the mornings.

Second, we need to have more stringent graduation requirements for college education majors. This is going to make all the teachers angry, but please hang with me through this series. Until you get to the end of what I propose, please don’t get angry and give up on this. Once you get to the end of the series, if you are still angry with my suggestions then by all means voice them!

When I was in college, the vast majority of education majors were those who couldn’t make it in other majors like biology or chemistry or business or engineering. People who flunked out of their major just switched to education and went right on. Every semester the university would publish a list of average GPA by major for the entire campus. The education majors always had BY FAR the lowest average GPA.

I remember the year I was a junior in college, my best friend was an education major. I was double majoring in finance and accounting and that year was the “flunk out year” for accounting students. The college’s standard practice was to weed out half of the accounting majors during the junior year. This was accomplished through a series of six exams throughout the course of the year. Every time we took one of these exams, a good percentage of the class would fail so badly that they would be forced to change majors the next morning. If you didn’t want to flunk out, you studied like a maniac. I took notes in class. I took notes while I read the course materials (textbook, handouts, articles, etc.) and I studied hours and hours and hours for these exams.

I remember walking down the sidewalk one evening on my way to take one of these dreaded exams. I was reading over my notes as I walked trying to not run into anyone as I was doing it. I was reciting formulas out loud not caring who overhead me talking to myself. I had been up all night for several nights in a row studying for this test and was exhausted beyond explanation. I must have looked like a crazed lunatic. On my way to the exam room, I passed the School of Education and say my friend with some of her classmates in the front yard jumping rope and making a poster on the sidewalk. I stopped for a second to say hello and asked what they were doing. They were also preparing for an exam only their exam was on jumping rope (something about it improves motor skills in pre-school age children) and they were making a poster for their presentation about it.

As I continued stumbling down the sidewalk trying to walk and read my notes and talk to myself on the way to take my exam, I couldn’t help but notice the difference between how I was being forced to study and prepare and learn for my major and how they were studying and preparing and learning for theirs. I specifically remember thinking at that moment, “this is part of what is wrong with public education.”

Colleges and universities need to get serious about their education programs. Education should be one of if not the toughest major on campus. Education majors should have the highest GPAs on campus. This business of jumping rope and making posters has got to go. Becoming a teacher should be hard. Very hard. It should be as difficult to become a teacher as it is to become an accountant or a lawyer (the CPA and Bar exams are no joke).

How do we accomplish this?

Thailand Revisited, Part 2

2010-05-18T07:56:00.001-04:00

Democracy has remained “at risk” in places like Thailand but flourished here because from the very beginning, the United States has been blessed with an educated population. When people are educated, bribery becomes much more difficult.

This is not to say that there is no corruption in the US government or that some government officials don’t offer bribes in order to win votes in our elections. In fact, I believe that there is corruption in our government and that there are people holding elected offices today because of bribery. However, I do not believe that this practice is at all pervasive in our government as it is in places like Thailand because the general public in the United States is reasonably well educated.

Educated people are aware of, understand and value their rights. It is extremely difficult to get educated people to agree to give up their rights for a bribe. This is again not to say that it doesn’t happen, it just isn’t pervasive. How much money would someone have to pay you to get you to agree to give up your constitutional rights? What would be your price? If you are like me, you might say that your rights are priceless and that there is no amount of money that would convince you to give them up. Some more practical people might say that everyone indeed has a price, but the price would be enormously high. No one can bribe a large group of us because we either wouldn’t give in no matter what the price or our price would be so exorbitantly high that no one could afford it.

Uneducated people, however, are unable to know what their legal rights are, to appreciate them or to value them. These people are able to be bribed much easier which is why we see large segments of Thailand’s population being bribed and the government constantly besought with corruption. Clearly, the way we “keep” our Republic, in response to Benjamin Franklin’s challenge, is to ensure that our population remains as highly educated as possible. The higher the average education level, the more free we will be.

Having established that education is critical to maintaining our Republic, we now must admit that the public education system is in a terrible mess. Teachers are paid a pittance. Even worse, many are not qualified to teach the subjects they are assigned to teach. The dropout rate is staggeringly high. The number of students who reach high school unable even to read is astonishing. Over one hundred fifty years ago when the homesteaders were busy settling the western regions of this country, they always built a school. And while students usually only went to school through the eighth grade, they were far better educated that most of today’s high school graduates.

It is embarrassing to think that more than one hundred fifty years later with far more money and access to modern technology, we cannot educate our people anywhere close to the level that those homesteaders did. Why were they so successful when we have failed? I believe it is because they prized and valued education more than virtually anything else. They barely had enough food to eat, but they made sure that their children went to school.

I believe that if we once again placed that high a value on education that our schools would dramatically improve. Specifically, how can we do this?

Thailand Revisited, Part 1

2010-05-17T11:45:00.000-04:00

With all of the violence erupting in Bangkok over the past week, several people have asked me about what is going on there knowing that I have been there several times. I have written about Thailand’s political troubles in the past and what is going on this week is a perfect example of what I described. In light of that, I am going to repost my articles about Education because I referred extensively to Thailand and the difficulties it faces because of the lack of education. I think a re-read of these articles is beneficial in light of current events.

Thailand - Part 1

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What have you wrought?” He answered, “. . . a Republic, if you can keep it.” A Republic is a difficult form of government. An absolute monarchy where the tyrant rules and the people do what they are told is a much more simple form of government that suffers very few conflicts, but it doesn’t leave the people free like a Republic does. Becoming and remaining free has never been nor will it ever be an easy task. There will be fights. There will be disagreements. There will be arguments and differences of opinion and out of necessity, compromise.

But all of this is only possible if we have an educated population. Democracy doesn’t work everywhere. It can’t. Why? Because a functioning democracy requires an educated population to notice what is going on in the government and if the government is not carrying out the will of the people, then the people must step in and remove from power those who are not following the rules set forth by our Constitution. If the population is not educated, however, then democracy will never be as successful as it has been elsewhere. Thailand is an excellent example.

Thailand used to be an absolute monarchy, but the King studied democracy and implemented freedoms into his country that paved the way for a democratically elected government to take over. To see how this happened, watch the movie “Anna and the King.” While some parts of the story are stretched a bit to make a good movie, the historical references are completely accurate as to how democracy came to Thailand. Anyway, the King of Thailand voluntarily gave up his absolute power and set up a parliamentary system (much like England) so that the people could choose their own government. The King retains power only over the military (also like England).

The problem is that large segments of the population in Thailand remain uneducated. While there are many world-class doctors and nurses and business people living and working in Thailand, there are also a large number of subsistence rice farmers who have received very little to no formal education. These people are extremely susceptible to bribery by public officials buying their votes in an election because even a small amount of money dramatically improves their living conditions. As such, elections in Thailand are often fraught with corruption. Every few years, things become so corrupt that the King will order the military to take over the government in a coup. The military then rules the country for a short time while the corrupt politicians are rounded up and prosecuted at which point the King again calls for public elections to set up a democratic form of government all over again.

This has happened many, many times in Thailand. I was in Thailand (Bangkok) less than a week after one of the recent military coups and I can attest to the fact that it was completely peaceful. There were no riots, no protests, no martial law – nothing. Why? Because everyone knew that the democratically elected government was in fact enormously corrupt and that the only way to clean it up was for the King to take over. Everyone also had complete faith that once those who were corrupting the system were brought to justice, the King would once again set up a democratically elected government.

The problem is that they keep doing this over and over and over again in Thailand. The King has to keep stepping back in to take over an enormously corrupt government and then once again set up a new democratic government. This is not a sustainable process because what happens if someone becomes king who decides they like being an absolute dictator? They just won’t set up the democratic government again after taking over in a military coup.

So why does democracy remain unsustainable and “at risk” in Thailand but has flourished here?

A Modern Revolt?, Part 5

2010-05-14T07:32:00.001-04:00

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1775, “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Our current government would do well to remember that it works for “we the people” and at our request. That the politicians so blatantly ignore those who elected them indicates that they don’t believe that people will remember their actions or care enough to vote them out of office at the next election. Are they about to be surprised this fall?

I think so and recent primary elections where long-term incumbents were defeated by their own party challengers shows that people are willing to try a new face who may listen to them instead of keeping the same person who has clearly ignored them.

Will the House or Senate change party hands this fall? It is WAY too early to tell, but even if it doesn't change hands with respect to the party in power, it is definitely changing hands when it comes to the people who fill the seats.

This is not uncommon in our country. In the early 1990s, while President Clinton was in office, Newt Gingrich and the Republican party were swept into power because people were fed up with the Congress not listening to them. People were happy for a while until those people were around for too long and stopped listening to the people who elected them also. Then Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats came to power for the same reason. My personal opinion is they are about to lost power for the same reason they got it - once they've held office for too long they stop listening.

A Modern Revolt?, Part 4

2010-05-13T07:32:00.000-04:00

When it comes to healthcare reform, everyone has different ideas on what needs to be done to address what everyone agrees is a problem. However, everyone is in agreement that they don’t like what has been done nor the way in which it was shoved through the Congress. No one I’ve spoken to on either side of the issue believes that this was the time to enact an expensive reform on a system that is clearly broken.

The expense of healthcare reform is enormous and no one seems to feel that it is something we can afford to do in the current economic climate. However, the government went ahead anyway over the protests of everyone on all sides of the issue. Again, the government ignored the concerns of the public so we shouldn’t be surprised that they are angry about it.

The government lately (the past couple of decades) is acting like it grants rights to the public instead of operating within the boundaries set up for it by the public – who holds all of the rights.

A Modern Revolt?, Part 3

2010-05-12T07:32:00.000-04:00

It seems that even if you still have plenty of money to spare, there are so many people who are struggling that it is considered poor taste to flaunt your wealth. When times were good, it was fine to live your wealth in flashy fashion, but with the new economic realities, it is more the fashion to live your wealth quietly.

With everyone having to change the way they live in order to deal with the economic situation we find ourselves in, people find it frustrating that the government has not also altered its method of operations. Instead of learning to live with less, like everyone else is doing, the government has expanded and spent more – not less.

While public opinion polls, letters and phone calls to elected officials and news reporting have all indicated that the American people want their government to spend less and to live within its means, like the rest of us have had to do, the government has behaved like an addict in a crack house – printing and spending more money faster than ever before.

That the government is clearly going against the wishes of the American public is obvious. That they are angry about it is therefore not surprising. How they choose to react to the government ignoring their desires is yet to be seen.

A Modern Revolt?, Part 2

2010-05-11T07:32:00.001-04:00

Everyone seems to have reached the end of their patience. I have spoken to numerous people from all political persuasions, economic theories and religious beliefs and all have told me that it is their intention to forget the political party the candidate represents and to vote for whomever is not the incumbent.

While it remains to be seen whether this trend will be widespread, the concept is definitely catching on. What also remains to be seen is whether voters will actually carry out this “threat” when it comes time to actually mark their ballot in the fall. Will lifelong Republicans actually vote for a Democrat just because the Republican is the incumbent? Will Democrats vote for a Republican?

If it does happen and voters do abandon political party affiliations in order to vote for a new face, this will be unique in American history and will demonstrate the depth of American anger at the government. Is this the new type of Revolution? Is this a revolt against the government institution not as a structure, but against the way things have come to be?

The most common complaints I have heard stem from two main items. The first is healthcare reform and the other is the economy. In regards to the economy, people everywhere have tightened their belts and are learning how to live with less. Conspicuous consumption used to cause other people to be envious, but now it disgusts people.

A Modern Revolt?, Part 1

2010-05-10T07:32:00.001-04:00

It seems everyone I talk to these days is angry at the federal government. While the particular issues may vary, the underlying theme everyone mentions is that they believe that the government doesn’t listen to them or represent their point of view.

This feeling is not limited to Republicans (currently out of power) or Independents. Conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Independents and Libertarians have all told me that they don’t feel like the government represents them.

If it were one party, I could see the argument because the government typically leans toward the left (liberal side) or the right (conservative side). But with all sides, all parties and all viewpoints claiming that the government doesn’t reflect their views, it makes me wonder. How did the government get so divorced from the beliefs of the people it is supposed to represent?

As I have written previously, it is my belief that politicians have for a number of years simply said whatever was necessary to get them elected and then once in office, did whatever they wanted as long as it would get them re-elected. It seems that campaign promises are completely worthless – and for some reason we’ve come to accept that as normal.

Big Mistake, Part 4

2010-05-07T07:10:00.000-04:00

What should President Obama do in response to this horrible mistake made in Quincy, IL last week?

I believe the politically intelligent move for President Obama would be to state that whomever made the decision to bring out the SWAT team in full riot gear was misinformed and that he doesn’t see such police action to be necessary as long as people are protesting peacefully – as they were in Quincy.

A government that is afraid of dissenting voices and uses ridiculously overwhelming police force to frighten people into silence is a government on its way toward absolute control. At the time our constitution was written, it was unique in the world because it stated that the power resided with the people and that the government only had as much power as the people agreed to give it.

Our government is not behaving like those senior citizens (and all the rest of us like them) who were voicing their concerns last week hold the true power in this country. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled and we should be too.

Register to vote. Vote every time there is an election. Exercise your rights and don’t let anyone tell you that government holds the power. The 10^th Amendment says that you do, but that comes with the responsibility to make wise decisions. Make them.

Big Mistake, Part 3

2010-05-06T07:10:00.000-04:00

Why is this incident so appalling?

Finally, I think it shameful that such an over-show of force could take place in this country. These people are rural, farm people in their 70s who were exercising their constitutional right to assemble peacefully to protest the actions of their government. And our government’s response was too similar to storm-troopers for my comfort.

Our government is now in the business of trying to frighten senior citizens into submission? It certainly seemed so last week. I believe that this is a terrible mistake – not only because our government should NEVER try to intimidate people into not exercising their rights, but because I know how something like this will go over in that area.

The people of that area are conservative and tend to vote democratic. They are part of the old democratic party though when democrats used to be the party of the working class. They are not the new democrats led by Nancy Pelosi that are liberal and elitists.

While they voted for President Obama hoping for a change in the way things have been handled over the past decade, an incident like what happened last week with the SWAT team in Quincy, IL is the sort of thing that turns conservative old democrats into independents.

How should the President handle the situation?

Big Mistake, Part 2

2010-05-05T07:10:00.000-04:00

Why is it sort of funny that someone would try to intimidate these people?

Well, since I was born in Quincy and grew up just down the road, I know the type of people who live there. Everyone is pretty much working class, and many are farmers. No one has much money and everyone works very hard. Most of the men have served in the military. They are honest people who once they’ve given their word, keep it.

Given that these are the type of people that would have been at this Tea Party rally, I sort of find it laughable that anyone would think that a SWAT team in riot gear would really be all that intimidating to these people. Seriously?! Is there anything more frightening these days than trying to earn a living as a small family farmer?

Farmers live and die each year by how much rain there is and when it comes, when that last frost of the spring is and when the first one comes in the fall. None of this can be known in advance and none of it is within anyone’s control – and yet every single year their family’s well-being depends on the weather cooperating, and it rarely does.

Added to that, as a farmer you work long, long hours every single day of the year knowing that in spite of the tremendous amount of work, you will never get rich. The best you can hope for is to keep your land and to put food on your table. To earn your living as a farmer, you have to have nerves of steel. And someone thought a SWAT team would scare them?

What is the last reason I find this incident to be appalling?

Big Mistake, Part 1

2010-05-04T07:10:00.000-04:00

Last week President Obama visited a small town in the Midwest, Quincy, Illinois. There was apparently a Tea Party rally was held in Quincy the same day as the President’s visit that was attended by primarily people in their 70s.

In response to the Tea Party, the SWAT team came in full riot gear with their large shields marching in step to protect the President from the “threat” of the Tea Party people protesting the federal government.

I find this to be utterly ridiculous for several reasons. First of all, I was born in Quincy, IL and know that the town is very small. There are maybe around 35,000 people living in the town so I find it difficult to imagine that a SWAT team is even necessary in such a small place.

Second, was the President really threatened by a few senior citizens? Did anyone seriously think they would start a riot that would threaten the safety of the President or anyone else? Apparently someone did because SWAT was called in, but whomever made the decision was overreacting along the lines of using a nuclear bomb to kill a mosquito.

I find it sort funny in one way. Why?

The Economy and the Future

2010-05-03T10:50:00.000-04:00

The latest economic numbers came out late last week and the economy grew by 3.2% during the first quarter of this year. This is the third straight quarter of economic growth which seems to signal an end to this horrific recession we’ve been struggling through for the past two years.

What exactly does it all mean?

Well, it is a good sign for the future and gives reason to hope that this awful economic downturn is on its way to getting better. The numbers look good, but of course numbers can change. I think we need to string together a few more quarters of positive economic growth before we can say for sure that it’s over, but everything seems to be heading in the right direction.

The unfortunate thing is that unemployment is the last of the financial indicators to improve when economic recovery happens. This means that it will unfortunately be a while (perhaps a long while) before everyone is back to work.

This is discouraging news for those who are searching for work and the recovery will be somewhat blunted until everyone is back to work and therefore back to spending. However, it does mean that if things continue as they are, the jobs will slowly come back and we can all finally start breathing a little easier again which will be a welcome relief for all of us.

Neighbors, Part 2

2010-04-30T07:06:00.000-04:00

Why don’t we see our neighbors the same way we used to: your “family” next door.

These days, neighbors are usually just the people who live in the house next door and there is very little relationship that actually happens with them. But haven’t we all lost something in losing that relationship with our neighbors? Wasn’t everyone safer when we were all looking out for each other?

Who wouldn’t want a neighbor like Miss Jessie that would gladly look out for your kids? The world has become a lot more dangerous place since I was a kid and yet we have given up some of the best safety for our kids that there is: good neighbors.

When it comes time to make a final decision between those last couple of houses that we like, I think before we make that offer I’m going to go next door and ring the doorbell and see who lives there. Not only are these people potential neighbors, they are also a wealth of information about the neighborhood because they already live there.

Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I’m hoping for a neighborhood with some younger couples with kids and a older couple to live next door and keep an eye on everything.

Neighbors, Part 1

2010-04-29T07:06:00.000-04:00

My husband and I are talking about buying a house soon and we were discussing neighborhoods, amenities, locations – all the things you have to take into account when buying a home. My husband commented that one factor we couldn’t account for was neighbors and then repeated the phrase: “You can’t choose your family or your neighbors.”

Is this true? You definitely can’t choose your family, or at least your birth family, but don’t we have at least some sort of choice when it comes to our inlaws? And why can’t you choose your neighbors? Why shouldn’t that be a factor that goes into choosing a house?

People used to know all of their neighbors, used to hang out and talk to their neighbors in the evenings and on weekends after everyone got home from work, borrow staples (milk, eggs, sugar, flour, etc), share tools and in general, look out for each other. They were your “family” next door.

When I was a kid growing up on a farm, our driveway was about ¾ of a mile long so the school bus stop was not anywhere close to being visible from the house. Since my mom couldn’t see the bus stop or be there to meet the bus, she simply asked our neighbor, a retired woman living across the road from the end of our driveway, to keep an eye on me. I remember Miss Jessie watched me get on and off the school bus every day to make sure I was safe and sometimes offered me apple slices as a snack.

Why isn’t this the case anymore?

Healthcare Reform Law, Part 3

2010-04-28T07:06:00.000-04:00

What is it about the new healthcare law that bothers me the most?

The third concern maybe bothers me the most because of a promise made by President Obama. The new healthcare law makes health insurance benefits, provided by and paid for by employers, taxable income to employees. Our company pays 100% of the costs of employee health and dental insurance. Employees may, at their option, purchase additional insurance for their spouses and children.

When President Obama ran for office and several times since being elected, he stated that anyone making less than $250,000 per year would not see any tax increases. Not a single person at our company makes more than $250,000 per year, but at the beginning of next year every one of us will see an increase in our taxes because the company pays for our health insurance.

This seems to be a direct violation of his promise to not increase our taxes – which is why this bothers me more than anything. All of us are well used to politicians lying to us or saying one thing to get elected and then doing another once they are elected, but didn’t we all hope that President Obama was different?

Like always, the regular people will find a way through and out of this economic mess, but we certainly aren’t getting any assistance from our government.

Healthcare Reform Law, Part 2

2010-04-27T10:06:00.002-04:00

So what does the new healthcare reform law mean for me and my department at work?

This means that our company will face increased costs in complying with 1099 reporting requirements both in manpower and in postage costs for mailing all of the extra 1099s. So in the middle of a terrible economy when businesses are struggling anyway, the new healthcare law is making it harder for them to remain a going concern.

Second, the new healthcare law requires employers to provide health insurance to their employees or pay a fine for not offering insurance. Again, in theory it sounds nice to have all employers offer their employees health insurance, but to require such a thing in the middle of a horrific economic downturn makes it more difficult for businesses to be able to afford to stay in business.

These two facts bother me because I believe that the government should be doing whatever it can to help businesses survive the economic downturn and get back on their feet. Healthy businesses is the only way the unemployment rate will start to decline and a true recovery that means something to the regular people (the ones who are unemployed and struggling to keep their homes) is to address unemployment.

It troubles me that the government has instead passed a law that makes it harder for businesses to recover and start to take on new employees. It makes me wonder how serious the government is about dealing with unemployment.

While these concerns are troubling, it is the third that bothers me the most.

Healthcare Reform Law, Part 1

2010-04-26T10:06:00.010-04:00

The Senate’s version of the healthcare reform bill was passed by the House of Representatives and signed by President Obama into law. After all the shouting and protesting and accusations, what does it all mean for the regular people?

The healthcare bill itself is complicated beyond belief and it will take quite a while to sort it all out. Because of this, most people have focused their efforts on the provisions that take effect first: namely those that go into effect right away and at the beginning of next year.

I am not a lawyer nor am I all that familiar with the healthcare industry, but as the Chief Financial Officer and Director of Human Resources at the firm I work for, I have received newsletters and updates from our insurance company updating me on the changes to our operations that will immediately and over the next several months be required as a result of the healthcare law.

I have a few concerns. First, previously Form 1099 was required to be sent only to sole proprietorships and partnerships, but was not required for payments made to corporations (either S corps or C corps). However, the new healthcare law requires that 1099s be mailed to all businesses INCLUDING corporations.

While 1099 reporting has nothing to do with healthcare, the changes are part of the new law and will dramatically increase the number of 1099s printed and mailed in this country. How much will it increase? My professional guesstimate is perhaps an increase of 200 times.

What does that mean for the business I work for and specifically my department?

Olympic Lessons, Part 4

2010-03-13T14:20:00.001-05:00

In the few seconds or minutes that the athletes got to compete after years of practicing for those moments, some got lucky breaks, some got unlucky breaks. The weather helped some and hurt others. Some had their best run ever and others crashed with broken hearts seeing their medal hopes dashed. Some came expecting to medal while others came hoping just to make it into the finals and advance their sport.

There were bumps and bruises and scrapes and nerves and falls and crashes and tears and smiles and triumphs in every sport and this is what makes the Olympics so special – that regardless of where the athletes are from, the emotions and reactions are always the same.

Cultures may determine the foods we prefer to eat, the styles or colors of clothes we choose to wear, but when it comes to emotions, we are all the same. We laugh at the same things, we cry at the same things, we work towards the same things, we celebrate the successes and lament the failures and hurt for the losses of people from everywhere. In this way, we really are more alike than we are different.

Why are the Olympics such an amazing event? Because they remind us every two years just how much we are the same regardless of politics, wars, culture, etc. we find during the Olympics that we really are all the same – just people.

Olympic Lessons, Part 3

2010-03-12T11:33:00.000-05:00

The day the Georgian athlete was killed my heart went out to his parents because of the phone call I got that day telling me that my sister had been in a car accident. That is the phone call that every person on the planet dreads to get – which is why in that moment, we weren’t Americans or Canadians or Russians or Georgians, we were all humans.

As the stories of the athletes from all countries rolled in over the two weeks of the games, we started to find that while we always cheer for our home country, we also find ourselves cheering for an athlete or two from other countries.

For example, who didn’t want the Canadian figure skater whose mother had come to the Games to watch her daughter skate only to die of a heart attack a couple of days before the competition began? As she won the bronze medal, wasn’t everyone cheering for her? Why? Because in that moment she wasn’t a Canadian skater trying to defeat skaters from our countries, she was a human being who had suffered a tragedy and we were also humans sympathizing with her situation.

By the time the closing ceremonies rolled around, I realized that the two weeks of the Games had done more to point out our similarities as people than our differences. Every athlete had practiced for years before coming to the Olympics to compete in their sport for anywhere from a few seconds to a couple of hours.

And in those few second or minutes that they got to compete?

Olympic Lessons, Part 2

2010-03-11T17:31:00.000-05:00

What happens to us during the Olympics?

A funny thing happens to us in the ensuing two weeks as the Games go on. The media spends their time getting to know the stories behind the athletes and sharing their stories with us. It is these stories that start to break down all of the perceived differences apparent during the opening ceremonies.

This’s year, those differences started to breakdown even earlier than usual with the death of the Georgian luge athlete on the day of the opening ceremonies. Normally, the applause is polite for every country as they enter the stadium and boistrous when a country enters with lots of fans in the audience. This year, however, when the country of Georgia entered the stadium with only a handful of athletes and coaches, the entire stadium gave them a standing ovation.

Why? Because while the rest of us aren’t of Georgian nationality, we all as humans understand the loss of a friend and family member and sympathize with the Georgian team. I remember when I heard that the athlete had been killed in a training accident. It went to my heart because just about 6 ½ years ago my sister was killed in a car accident on her way to my house.

Knowing that the athlete was from Georgia I knew there was a good chance that his family hadn’t been able to afford the trip all the way to Canada for the Olympics and that meant that in the middle of the night they were awakened by a phone call telling them that their son was dead.

Isn’t it something like this that makes us all forget our nationality and remember that we are all humans?

Olympic Lessons, Part 1

2010-03-09T16:16:00.000-05:00

With the closing ceremonies of the 2010 Winter Olympics just over a week ago, I’ve spent the last week thinking about the Olympics, the achievements, the heartbreaks and what it all means. I mostly thought about the opening and closing ceremonies and reflected on the differences between the two and what we learned about ourselves and the world during the two weeks in between them.

During the opening ceremonies, the fans in attendence and those watching on television around the world wait for their country to enter the stadium carrying their nation’s flag and wearing the uniform of their country’s Olympic team.

The uniforms are as different as the countries represented and everyone is most proud of the athletes from their own home country. This is only natural for us all to root for the athletes from our home. The delegations can vary dramatically in size as well. Some countries send only a couple of athletes and a coach or two while other countries, like the United States, send many dozens of athletes and as many coaches.

The thing about the opening ceremony is that it seems to point out our differences – our choices of colors, the uniform styles the athletes wear, the flags they carry – all emphasize our differences as people and countries. It is one of those moments where the world sort of sets up teams and competes against each other and everyone cheers on their own team.

But this doesn’t seem to last very long.

Immigration Policies, Part 5

2010-03-08T17:22:00.000-05:00

What if we changed our laws to match those of many other countries in the world where simply being born here didn’t make you a citizen?

Citizenship would still be available automatically to anyone who was born with at least one parent a US citizen and for everyone else; they can go through the naturalization process. If one or both of your parents became naturalized citizens prior to your birth, then you would automatically become a citizen at your birth. However, if neither parent is a US citizen, then the child would not become a citizen simply because they were born in the United States but upon reaching the age of majority, could become naturalized citizens themselves.

What would this do? First, it would discourage women from crossing the border illegally to have children by the side of the road because there would be no advantage for doing so. The child’s citizenship would be determined by that of the parents – not on the location of their birth. This would discourage illegal immigration as would closing the borders and speeding up the legal immigration process. It would also avoid the current situation that we face where the parents are illegal and the kids are citizens – meaning we can’t deport the illegals without depriving children of their parents. This would mean that the whole family would have to enter the country legally and then go through the naturalization process to become citizens and after naturalized, any additional children would automatically be citizens.

I believe this would be good both for immigrants and citizens alike. Everyone would be safer because we would have control of who is entering and leaving the country. We won’t split up families under the one-time amnesty program and we would avoid the same situation in the future because being born here wouldn’t automatically make you a citizen.

It would also be safer for the women currently trying to cross the border to give birth to children by the side of the road because they wouldn’t have to choose between medical care and their children’s future. It would also allow more people to enter legally because the process is speeded up to allow more families to enter each year. To do this, however, we would have to amend the Constitution (specifically change Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment) to state that simply being born in the United States does not make you a citizen.

I fully recognize that all this is controversial. The amnesty program is controversial. Changing the 14^th Amendment is controversial. I know politicians don’t want to touch the immigration issue because minority voters don’t like the idea of getting tough on immigration and politicians only want votes. However, we have to admit that the current situation is a mess and a true national security issue. I don’t see any other way to address the problem and make us safe without implementing these changes. I am, however, open to suggestions. If you have other ideas, let’s hear them!

Immigration Policies, Part 4

2010-03-05T08:34:00.000-05:00

Are our citizenship policies all a good idea?

I wholeheartedly support the first and the third methods (parent is a citizen and naturalization) of becoming a citizen and believe that we should do whatever we can to help people go through the naturalization process to become citizens. Again, we are a nation of immigrants and I believe this has contributed in enormous ways to our success as a nation.

However, I believe we need to re-think is the second method (born in the United States). Let’s pretend for a second that my parents (both of whom are US citizens) were on vacation in Morocco while my mom was pregnant with me and then unexpectedly my mom went into labor and I was born in a hospital in Morocco.

Because my parents are US citizens I would also automatically be a US citizen even though I was born in Morocco. Would I also be a citizen of Morocco? I don’t know the specific laws of Morocco, but in many countries of the world the answer would be no. Just being born in the country would not make me a citizen when both of my parents are citizens of another country.

Let’s take another example. Let’s say that my dad was in the military and stationed overseas in Japan (with the Navy or Marines) and I was born on the Naval Base in Japan. Because my parents again are US citizens, I would also become a citizen automatically but would not be a citizen of Japan even though I was born there.

The point is this: in many other countries of the world you have to have some sort of tie to the country in order to obtain citizenship in that country (i.e. one of your parents is a citizen of that country). We are nearly unique in the world in that we automatically grant citizenship to anyone born on our land. This is why women cross the border from Mexico illegally to have their children in a ditch by the side of the road on the American side because that makes their children citizens and eligible for public education, healthcare, etc.

This is bad not only for the United States (encourages illegal immigration in order to have children); it is also bad for the women trying to do this. These women personally would be a lot better off having their children in a hospital south of the border rather than trying to give birth in a ditch with little or no medical care at all – but they do it because they believe that it will be better for their children if they are born citizens of the United States – and they are right. It is ridiculous that these women have to choose between their own medical well-being and their children’s future and end up trying to have children by the side of the road!

What if we changed this rule?

Immigration Policies, Part 3

2010-03-02T18:07:00.000-05:00

What other options are there?

In addition, because of the many years that the government has been ineffective at enforcing immigration policies, we now have situations where parents are illegal immigrants who should be deported and children who were born in this country making them citizens which means we can’t deport them. We obviously can’t deport parents and leave minor children with no one to care for them. We can’t deport citizens. We must deport illegal immigrants. We can’t split up families. We are between a rock and a hard place here.

The only solution is to grant a one-time amnesty program for those families that have some illegals and some citizens. This program should be one-time only and should only apply in situations where the family can prove that one or more members of the immediate nuclear family are citizens. In this case, I would favor granting resident status to the illegals in the family making everyone in the family “legal”.

The family members who are not already citizens can then be placed on the path to naturalization. This program should only be available for a short period of time and there should be no penalty for those who come forward to make their family “legal.” In cases where the entire family is illegal, the entire family should be deported and asked to apply to enter the country legally. This one-time “amnesty” program would allow families who are part illegal and part legal to stay together.

Finally, how do we prevent this from happening again? Aside from closing the borders, what happens when people come in illegally and have children and then we can’t deport them because we are back in the same situation that we are in today where we would have to split up families in order to deport the illegals without deporting children who are citizens?

The only way I see to truly address the problem is to take a serious look at the Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

The problem here is how the Constitution defines who is a citizen. There are three ways to become a citizen of the United States. First, if either of your parents are US citizens, you also are automatically a citizen of the United States regardless of where you were born. Second, if you were born in the United States you are automatically a citizen, regardless of whether your parents are citizens of the US. Third, you can go through the naturalization process to become a citizen.

Are all three of these a good idea?

Immigration Policies, Part 2

2010-03-01T14:57:00.000-05:00

What else can we do to deal with the immigration mess?

Well, in addition to securing the borders, we have to speed up the process of obtaining legal access to our country. If people could obtain, complete and submit the appropriate paperwork to enter the country legally and expect to receive the appropriate documentation (a VISA for example) within any reasonable amount of time, I think more would go the legal route.

However, it can take months or even several YEARS to get the paperwork necessary to enter the United States legally. It therefore becomes worth the risk to try and enter the country illegally. Reforming the VISA system would go a long way toward cutting down on illegal entry into the country.

Third, we have to seriously step up VISA enforcement. Once a person’s VISA expires, the government not only needs a way to know that, they also must follow up to make sure that the person has exited the country and if they have not, the person needs to be tracked down and deported. We cannot have people overstaying their VISAs by months or even years because this puts everyone at risk.

If, for example, a VISA was issued to a person with bad intentions (terrorist for example), then we want them to either have to submit the paperwork to renew their VISA which increases the likelihood we will discover their true intentions or we want to deport them – which decreases the amount of time they are in the country and able to carry out their plots. We cannot have people coming into the country on student VISAs and overstaying their VISA by 8 years while they plan and carry out terrorist plans.

When the VISA expired they should have been deported which would have foiled the plot – even if we were never aware of it. In addition, once a person has been deported, they should be unable to get another VISA to enter the country for a number of years which would also encourage VISA compliance.

Is there anything else can we do?

Immigration Policies, Part 1

2010-02-25T13:17:00.000-05:00

Regardless of political affiliation, everyone agrees that we have a fairly serious immigration problem in this country. Millions of people are in the country illegally either because they entered without proper paperwork or because they have overstayed their properly issued VISAs.

The federal and state governments have no idea how many people are in the country illegally or where they came from. There may well be people on the Terror Watch List in the country right now and we would have no way of knowing it. This clearly puts all of us – citizens, residents and immigrants at risk.

Before we get too much farther, let me say that I am in favor of immigration. Our country is made up almost entirely of immigrants (except for the very few American Indians left) and as I have written before, I believe that while immigration has brought us many struggles, we are ahead of the world because we are and have always been the “melting pot.” However, we have to find a way to make all of us safe.

For this reason I believe that we have to get serious about the flow of people in and out of our country – both legally and illegally. How do we do this?

First, we have to secure our borders. We can’t have people coming in to the country ANY way other than through designated entry points – i.e. border crossings, airports, etc. If people can just come and go as they please, then terrorists can come and go as they please as well which puts everyone who lives here at risk.

Whatever we have to do to secure the borders, we must do. If this means build the fence, then we have to build the fence. If this means stationing the National Guard at the border, then so be it. Whatever. We have to get the borders under control if we are ever going to be safe.

What else can we do?

A Reasonable Tax System, Part 8

2010-02-24T17:51:00.000-05:00

So would this system, subject to political whims, be any better than the current system? I believe so.

The reason it would be different is that under this new system corruption would be much more difficult to hide because the only regulations necessary would be the exceptions themselves so the entire Internal Revenue Code (as it applies to personal taxes) would consist only of two lists: those items exempt from tax altogether and those items that are considered luxuries and subject to the higher rate. Everything else would be taxed at the regular rates. Any person who can read would be able to completely understand the tax system which would make it harder for politicians to hide their corruption because of this tremendous increase in transparency.

This tax system would virtually eliminate what I believe is most certainly the single largest source of corruption in our government. We would have a set of laws that the regular people could easily understand. Large portions of the IRS become unnecessary saving us large sums of money. Tax returns are no longer needed saving the taxpayers money which stimulates the economy.

Complying with the tax laws becomes extremely simple. The elimination of the capital gains tax would also stimulate the economy. Clearly this system would enormously benefit the economy, the country and the regular people. So how do we go about getting this done? We cannot count on any of the politicians from either party to do it as this would take away their primary method of handing out special favors. We have to take this issue up ourselves. We need to contact our Representatives and Senators and tell them that we want a tax system that is actually possible to comply with.

The system I have proposed is certainly not the only answer and additional provisions would be necessary to address the separate problems of Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes and corporate income taxes, but it would go a very long way toward improving the situation for the regular, average people.

We must demand better from our politicians and as part of that, improve our government’s transparency and reduce corruption. To do this, we will probably have to elect “new blood” rather than return the incumbents to Washington. New people are much more closely tied to the people’s interests as they haven’t been in office long enough to have been corrupted by it.

Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This has certainly been the case with the Internal Revenue Code.

A Reasonable Tax System, Part 7

2010-02-23T12:30:00.000-05:00

So why haven’t we done this earlier?

The unfortunate answer is because of politics. The reason our current tax system is in such a mess is because it is the favorite way for politicians to reward those who contribute large sums of money to their political campaigns. Politicians from both parties like to “thank” those who support their campaigns by giving them special favors which entices them to support their campaigns again in the future. Using the tax code is their favorite way to dole out these “special favors” for a couple of reasons: first, because these tax provisions are always part of a large tax bill making it difficult to know who is responsible for a one line provision that benefits a specific person and second, because the size of the internal revenue code is so huge it is nearly impossible for anyone to know that the special favor is even there – except for the people it was designed to benefit.

Because it is so easy to hide these special favors in an absolutely huge tax code, there is no accountability. No one knows which politician put the special provision in the law. No one knows who the special provision was designed to benefit. No one knows that these special provisions are even there because they are buried in the stacks and stacks and stacks of paper that make up the Internal Revenue Code.

While this system is enormously difficult to implement, nearly impossible to truly comply with, makes no sense for a nation of laws and is horribly expensive both for the taxpayer and for the government, the reason we have it is because it allows politicians from both parties to be corrupt without anyone knowing it. It will be extremely difficult to get ANY of them to be in favor of changing the system for the same reason. They like not having to be accountable. Also, remember that there is an entire profession, tax preparers, with a very large and very powerful lobby in Washington who don’t want the laws to change either.

To be completely fair, the system I have proposed would also be subject to political corruption because determining what items fall into the “luxury” category (and therefore subject to the higher sales tax rate) would become political. Politicians from both parties would try to get certain items exempted (luxury yachts or whatever) because it would benefit people who had contributed to their political campaigns. They might also try to get second homes exempted from the national real estate tax and various other shenanigans.

So would this system help at all or would it be just as bad as the old system?

A Reasonable Tax System, Part 6

2010-02-22T12:44:00.000-05:00

I think there is another solution. If a national property tax were paired with the three-tiered national sales tax system previously described it would become even more progressive. Let’s return to our sales tax example with the three people. If the national property tax system were also three-tiered, this would make it further progressive. For example, people living in apartments would pay no tax because they do not own the property. Therefore, those with lower incomes living in apartments would pay no tax at all. Those in the middle class would pay a “regular” property tax rate on their homes so they would pay more than the poor who pay no tax at all. Finally, the wealthy would pay a higher rate on houses valued over a certain amount so they would pay more taxes than the middle class. In this way, the national tax system becomes even more progressive so as to not unfairly burden the poor.

A national property tax system would also be incredibly easy to administer because again, local governments are already set up to handle this. Properties are already assessed a value and a property tax rate applied. Bills are sent to the homeowners at the end of the year and one check is written to the local government to pay the tax. That is it. The taxpayer does not have to calculate the value of their property or even the amount due. They simply pay one bill per year when it is mailed to their home. It would be an easy matter for local governments to add one line to their real estate bills for the federal government amount. Once all of the property taxes were collected by the local government, they would simply remit the federal government’s portion to them.

Together, a three-tiered national sales tax and a three-tiered national property tax would be a progressive tax that would not unfairly burden the poor. In fact, most of the poor would pay no tax at all which is similar to the current situation with the progressive income tax. The middle class would pay more in taxes than the poor, but less than the wealthy who would bear the largest portion of the tax burden which is also the same as the current situation with the progressive income tax. So what would be the difference between this and the current system?

The difference would be that the tax system would become incredibly simple to comply with. There would be no capital gains taxes (part of personal income taxes) which would increase investment and improve the economy. There would also be no tax returns to file and no concerns among the regular people about complying with an enormous amount of laws that they don’t understand. This would restore some logic to our tax system in that we wouldn’t have laws that we expect people to comply with, but also know that there is no way they can actually do so.

In addition, there would be no need to hire tax professionals to prepare tax returns which means that everyone would have more money in their pockets to spend – which further helps the economy. Finally, there would also be no need for the personal income tax section of the IRS to enforce the tax laws because this would be taken care of through sales tax and property tax enforcement. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars which would mean lower tax rates.

So if this system would be very simple to implement and incredibly easy to comply with, makes sense for a nation of laws, would stimulate the economy, would put more money in everyone’s pocket, would save millions of taxpayer dollars AND would not unfairly burden the poor, why haven’t we done this earlier?

A Reasonable Tax System, Part 5

2010-02-19T14:16:00.000-05:00

So how can we design a system that is reasonably fair to everyone and yet is simple to administer? Well, in my home state of Florida, there is no state income tax but rather a state sales tax. However, food (groceries) is exempted and therefore has no tax at all. Because those with lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their total income on food, exempting food from the sales tax altogether helps enormously in addressing the problem of a sales tax being regressive. For example, let’s go back to our two people one of which makes $100 per year and the other who makes $1000 per year. Let’s say that the person with the lower income spends $30 per year on food. By contrast, the person making $1000 per year spends the same $30 for food, but also spends another $50 per year eating out at restaurants.

In this example, the person making only $100 per year would pay no tax at all for their food because groceries are exempt from taxation. The $30 that the wealthier person spends on groceries is also exempt from tax, but the $50 they spend eating out at restaurants would be taxed because it is not groceries. In this way, the tax becomes less regressive because the poorer person doesn’t pay any tax at all while the wealthier person does.

The sales tax also becomes less regressive (less burdening to the poor) if in addition to exempting groceries from the tax altogether, a special higher sales tax rate were applied to designated luxury items. So there would be no tax at all on groceries, a “regular” tax rate for all “normal” goods and services and a higher tax rate for specified “luxury” items. These luxury items could be, for example, cars costing more than $75,000 or boats costing more than $75,000 and so on. This would create a sort of “three-tiered” sales tax structure which would make the tax progressive rather than regressive and would still be incredibly simple to administer.

Let’s go back to our example only this time let’s add a third person who makes $10,000 per year. So we have a poor person making $100 per year, a middle-class person making $1000 per year and a wealthy person making $10,000 per year. The poor person who spends the vast majority of their income on groceries will pay no tax at all on the largest portion of their income. The middle class person will still pay no tax on their groceries, but will pay tax on the food they eat out in restaurants and on other goods and services they buy – but at the “regular” tax rate so they will pay more tax than the poor person.

The wealthy person will pay no tax on their groceries, but this represents only a very tiny percentage of their total income. They will pay tax at the “regular” rate for eating out at restaurants and for other goods and services they purchase and they will also pay a higher rate of tax on any luxury items they buy. This means that they will pay more tax than the middle class person. In this way, the sales tax system is no longer regressive, but progressive so that it does not unfairly burden the poor but remains an incredibly simple system for both the taxpayer and those selling goods and services.

Are there other options or ways to improve upon this system?

A Reasonable Tax System, Part 4

2010-02-18T12:37:00.000-05:00

So is it possible to design a sales tax system that, while simple, doesn’t unfairly burden the poor? Theoretically. The idea behind a progressive tax system is that a poorer person is hurt more by taxes than a wealthy person. This is measured by the marginal value each person places on a dollar.

Let’s break this down in a way that we can understand. If you have no money at all, then the value that you would place on $1 would be very high because you could take it to McDonalds and get something to eat off the Dollar Menu. Your marginal value on that first dollar is extremely high because you don’t have any dollars at all. However, if you are a billionaire, then you don’t care very much about a single dollar at all. Your marginal value on that next dollar (after a billion) isn’t very high at all.

Clearly, as a person obtains more money the marginal value that they place on a single dollar declines. The very first dollar has an extremely high marginal value while the billionth dollar has a very low marginal value. So the marginal value of a dollar declines as wealth increases.

If the rate of a dollar’s marginal decline could be accurately calculated, then we could design a perfectly fair tax system – fair being defined as one that “pained” everyone by the same amount. The tax rate would be lower for those with less income because taxes “pain” the poor a lot due to their dollars’ marginal value being very high at a low level of wealth and the rate would be higher for those with more income because taxes “pain” the rich less due to their dollars’ marginal value being lower.

So if we knew the exact rate at which the marginal value of a dollar declined, then it would become a simple math problem to figure out how much taxes each person would pay based on their income level.

The problem is, it is impossible to calculate the rate at which the marginal value of a dollar declines because every person is different. Each person has unique spending habits and values (giving money to charity for example) that make each person’s rate different. As each person can’t possibly have their own formula, we would have to determine a rate based on some national average – which at best could only be approximated.

Calculating this “average” rate of decline in the marginal value of a dollar would change from year to year based on economic conditions (people are now saving more than prior to the recession for example) and inflation among other factors. In short, it would be enormously complicated and therefore subject to MUCH political perversion.

So how can we design a system that is at least reasonably fair to everyone and yet is simple to administer?

A Reasonable Tax System, Part 3

2010-02-17T13:39:00.000-05:00

Would a tax system similar to what the states of Texas or Florida work at the federal level?

If the federal government were to do away with personal income taxes (business income taxes, Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes are separate problems) and replace them with a national sales tax, it would instantly relieve the regular people of EVER having to file a tax return. Think how easy that would be. No more withholding from your paycheck. The whole thing (except for Social Security and Medicare) would be yours to take home and spend how you wanted to – and when you purchased goods or services, you would pay a sales tax.

This would be infinitely easier for us, the regular people. It wouldn’t be at all difficult on all of the many various businesses in the country as their computer systems are already set up for calculating and collecting sales taxes. It would be a simple, one time change to their systems to add a national level sales tax that was remitted to the federal government. From the standpoint of simplicity, nothing beats a national sales tax.

However, critics of a sales tax system will immediately point out that it is a “regressive tax” instead of a “progressive tax.” A regressive tax is one that the weight falls heaviest on those of a lower income. All tax systems that have a flat percentage rate are regressive. Think about it like this: if you have two people, one of which makes $100 per year and another who makes $1000 per year. Let’s say that they each need to buy a pair of pants which cost $10 and the tax rate is 10%. Each of them will pay $1 in tax bringing their total bill to $11 for the pants.

The reason the tax is regressive is because the person making only $100 per year paid 1% of their total income in taxes to buy the pants while the person making $1000 per year paid only 0.1% of their total income in taxes. A progressive tax, on the other hand, increases as income goes up. As example of a progressive tax would be the current income tax system where as your income increases, you are in a higher tax bracket and pay a higher percentage of total income in taxes. For example in 2010, a household (married filing jointly) making less than $68,000 per year is in the 15% tax bracket while a household making over $68,000 and less than $137,300 is in the 25% tax bracket and so on. As your income increases, so does the tax rate.

So is it possible to design a sales tax system that, while simple, doesn’t unfairly burden the poor?

A Reasonable Tax System, Part 2

2010-02-16T12:50:00.000-05:00

So how did the tax system get to be such a mess?

It is discouraging that the reason the tax laws are so lengthy and so complicated is because over the years politicians have had special loopholes and provisions written into the tax code to benefit people who donated money to their election campaigns. As a result, the tax code is a tangled mess of special provisions that benefit the regular people absolutely not at all. In fact, they make things worse for us because we have to hire professionals (expensive) to help us comply with the tax laws every year or we can call the IRS for help, but even then we are still the ones responsible for making sure that everything is correct – as if we could ever know that.

What we really need is a total and complete overhaul to the way our government collects its revenue so that the government has the money it needs to carry out its responsibilities and the regular people are imposed upon in the smallest possible way. How do we do that? How do we design a reasonable tax system that allows the government to collect the money it needs while imposing on the people as little as possible?

I believe that in order to find a tax system that is as easy as possible for the regular people we need look no farther than other tax systems that we already have. Several states, including my home state of Florida, do not have a state income tax. The state income tax is replaced by a sales taxes and property taxes. Both of these are incredibly simple for the regular person because you pay the tax to the seller at the time you buy something and the buyer has no further responsibility. The seller is then responsible for remitting the sales tax to the state government.

This is about as simple as it can get – both for the buyer and the seller. The person paying the sales tax simply pays the tax at the point they purchase something. They don’t have to calculate the amount or be responsible for sending it to the government. It is just paid as part of the price of purchasing something and that’s it. From the seller’s standpoint, it is also relatively simple. Even though cities and municipalities have added their own sales taxes on top of the state sales tax, it is a simple matter of programming the cash registers or computer systems to calculate the taxes separately so that a running total of what is owed to the state is kept separate from the running total of what is owed to the local government. At the appointed times, the sell simply remits the total amount owed to the respective governments.

Would this work at the federal government level?

A Reasonable Tax System, Part 1

2010-02-15T14:13:00.000-05:00

Some people claim that the very basis of an income tax is unconstitutional. This is false. The Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution states: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” This makes it clear that Congress has the power over income taxation.

Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . .” This also clearly gives Congress the power to collect taxes so enough with the claim that income taxes are unconstitutional. We may wish they were, but we won’t for very long because the only way our country can “provide for the common defence” and everything else is by collecting taxes.

Having put to rest the issue of whether income taxes are constitutional or not, let’s look into the tax system itself. I hold a bachelor’s degree in finance, a bachelor’s degree in accounting and a master’s degree in accounting with an emphasis in taxation. I am a Certified Public Accountant. I am a licensed Investment Advisor. You would think that I would know all that there is to know about taxes. Not in the least! Why? Because the Internal Revenue Code with associated Treasury Regulations and decisions by the Tax Court that apply to every single American trying to file their taxes every year are so numerous it is impossible for one person to know all of them. When I was in graduate school, my tax professors told us that their job was more about teaching us how to find what we needed to know about taxes than it was actually teaching us about the tax laws themselves.

If you took the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as Amended, the current rules taxpayers are subject to, and printed it out it would be a stack of paper over 18 feet tall. This is insane! The government actually expects the regular, average person trying to file their taxes every year to know everything contained in those stacks and stacks of paper? No they don’t. Not even the government knows what all is in there and neither do professional tax preparers. So this means that the government has actually passed laws that they intend for us to try to comply with, and will hold us accountable if we don’t, but at the same time everyone knows that it is humanly impossible to actually be aware of or even know about all of the laws we are supposed to follow!

This had led to an utterly ridiculous situation where the American people are required and expected to comply with laws that they have no hope of ever understanding. Seriously? This is how a nation of laws conducts its business? How did it get to be this way?

Re-visiting What Makes a Leader, Part 2

2010-02-12T14:12:00.000-05:00

In addition to financial troubles, the recent decisions to possibly grant terrorists constitutional rights and to try them in federal court as if they were American citizens has caused further doubt on President Obama’s leadership. The rights that we as citizens have are precious and valuable and have been paid for over and over with the blood of our citizens. To give these rights away freely to someone whose intent it is to destroy us, our country and our values is to cheapen these rights for which we have paid so dearly. I severely question the wisdom of this.

That’s not to say that the country isn’t in desperate need of leadership. Congress has dissolved into a complete mess even voting last summer to support a bill that no one in the House of Representatives had even read! Regardless of which party you support, both sides have been guilty of doing more shouting than anything and very little has been accomplished that is of any consequence to the regular, average people of this country. Everyone is accusing the other side of being communists or socialists or Nazis and no one is really dispensing very much in the way of facts. As such, we, the regular, average people are left not knowing what the facts are and mistrusting everyone.

Last summer, instead of explaining these facts and clearly stating what parts of which healthcare plans they are for or against, members of Congress from both parties used their town hall meetings to spread more misinformation about the other side's plan causing even more confusion. In the midst of all this misinformation, spread by the members of Congress themselves and their PACs and special interest groups, it is no wonder that people became alarmed and scared and confused. They reacted by voting Scott Brown into Teddy Kennedy’s old Senate seat.

By the time of President Obama’s first State of the Union Address, however, the previously rather patient, humble President had given way to a new tone that was defiant and stubborn - even at times bordering on arrogance. Why? The public had clearly rejected his plans – especially when it came to healthcare.

During the State of the Union, for the first time in anyone’s memory, perhaps ever, the President publicly chastised the Supreme Court in his speech. The Court is supposed to be non-political so they are prohibited from clapping or responding in any way to the President’s remarks except in response to general patriotism or support for troops, etc. So the Court had to sit there, staring straight ahead in silence while the President criticized them. Then the President promised to try and circumvent the Court to re-establish the portions of the McCain-Feingold law that he favors. This was not only extremely inappropriate; it also flies in the face of the Constitution’s Separation of Powers clauses.

The President also blasted the Senate for failing to pass a bill that would have established a commission to study fiscal issues the country is facing. He then promised that he would simply use an Executive Order to create the commission. His criticism of the Senate was also inappropriate and his promise to simply go around them to create the commission using Executive Order also undermines the concept of Separation of Powers.

Finally, the President indicated that the reason the regular, average people were opposed to his policies was because they didn’t understand them. This seemed to indicate that he believes that the regular people weren’t capable of understanding the importance of his policies because they weren’t smart enough. He insinuated that anyone who disagrees with him is simply uninformed or stupid which is certainly not the case. The President himself stated in the speech that democracy is noisy and messy. Dissent does not mean stupidity although the President seemed to say that. This is disturbing.

In discussing what makes a good President vs. what makes a good leader, the position on a good leader seemed to all boil down to communication. President Obama's town hall meetings and numerous speeches bode well for his communication skills. We can hope that members of Congress will start to take their cues from the President in this respect and will stop the nonsense of trying to confuse and scare people into supporting or not supporting a position.

However, his performance at the State of the Union to me seemed to demonstrate a lack of humility which is essential to being a good President and leaving the Office of the President in a position commanding more respect than it did when he came to it. If this attitude towards dissent continues, it does not bode well for his being a good President. None of the great presidents, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and others lacked humility. In fact, they were greatly humbled by the Office they held and approached almost with fear the power that they wielded. It is only a humble person who can ever truly become great.

Re-visiting What Makes a Leader, Part 1

2010-02-11T12:50:00.000-05:00

Is President Obama a good president? I’m starting to have serious doubts. While it is certainly my hope that he will continue his obvious dedication to communication, his policies do not seem to have an eye toward the future. We always seem to talk in this country about how the government is mortgaging our “children’s future” or our “grandchildren’s future” but I believe that this is behind the curve. The government is now mortgaging MY future.

It is well-known and has been long discussed that Social Security would eventually run into deficits as the Baby Boomers retired so MY generation would be stuck paying for benefits that we will never ourselves receive. However, this assumed that the Social Security surpluses of the previous 60+ years would be saved for when they were needed to make up the shortfall. However, this has not been the case. The government has already spent these surpluses. They don’t exist.

So when the Baby Boomers retire, not only will the Social Security taxes MY generation is paying in not be enough to pay the benefits being paid out, but the money that was supposed to cover the shortfall is gone too which means that once again, MY generation will have to pay higher taxes to make up the difference.

Medicare is in exactly the same situation as Social Security, only worse. Medicare is going broke even sooner than Social Security which means once again, MY generation will have to make up the difference.

Aside from the Social Security and Medicare debts which are “off the books” (meaning that the Congress decided to not include them in the annual budget calculations) there are the current staggering deficits and the soaring national debt. President Obama’s own budget projects that his government will spend around 25% of gross domestic product (GDP) each year that he is in office. This is the “on the books” spending only! This is far short of the government’s expected revenues which means that more debt is piling up every second.

How will this debt be paid? Well, the options are rather limited. When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, either the government will have to raise taxes, cut benefits or some combination of the two. There are no other options. When it comes to the national debt, the government will either have to drastically cut spending and use the surplus to pay down the debt or they will have to raise taxes to cover the shortfall. There are no other options.

The frustrating thing is that it is MY benefits that will have to be cut and MY taxes that will have to be raised most likely both at the same time because the government has been so irresponsible for so long. No one can claim to be either a good president or a good leader if they sell future generations down the river because the current generation insists on instant gratification. What else causes me to doubt?

Education - Our Most Important Mess?, Part 6

2010-02-10T14:03:00.000-05:00

If tenure has to go, what about protecting the teachers?

By contrast, how did the Deep South manage to keep slaves for such a long number of years? They made it illegal to teach a slave to read or to educate them in any way. Why? Because anyone who was at all educated could plainly see what what they were doing was wrong. They rightly feared that if slaves were educated, they would rise up and demand their freedom on the basis that all human beings have a right to be free as clearly stated by our own Declaration of Independence. Only uneducated people can be repressed for long periods of time.

Education - Our Most Important Mess?, Part 5

2010-02-09T11:16:00.000-05:00

What about protecting the teachers though?

Education - Our Most Important Mess?, Part 4

2010-02-08T10:25:00.000-05:00

How do we go about making it more difficult to become a teacher?

This is complicated though by one much-debated thing: tenure. How does teacher tenure fit into all of this?

Education, Our Most Important Mess?, Part 3

2010-02-05T14:30:00.000-05:00

So, in practical terms, how do we go about improving our schools?

I remember the year I was a junior in college, one of my friends was an education major. I was double majoring in finance and accounting and that year was the “flunk out year” for accounting students. The college’s standard practice was to weed out half of the accounting majors during the junior year. This was accomplished through a series of six exams throughout the course of the year. Every time we took one of these exams, a good percentage of the class would fail so badly that they would be forced to change majors the next morning. If you didn’t want to flunk out, you studied like a maniac. I took notes in class. I took notes while I read the course materials (textbook, handouts, articles, etc.) and I studied hours and hours and hours for these exams.

I remember walking down the sidewalk one evening on my way to take one of these dreaded exams. I was reading over my notes as I walked trying to not run into anyone as I was doing it. I was reciting formulas out loud not caring who overhead me talking to myself. I had been up all night for several nights in a row studying for this test and was exhausted beyond explanation. I must have looked like a crazed lunatic. On my way to the exam room, I passed the School of Education and saw my friend with some of her classmates in the front yard jumping rope and making a poster on the sidewalk. I stopped for a second to say hello and asked what they were doing. They were also preparing for an exam only their exam was on jumping rope (something about it improves motor skills in pre-school age children) and they were making a poster for their presentation about it.

How do we accomplish this?

Education, Our Most Important Mess?, Part 2

2010-02-04T14:08:00.000-05:00

I believe that if we once again placed that high a value on education that our schools would dramatically improve. Specifically, how can we do this?

Education, Our Most Important Mess?, Part 1

2010-02-03T14:51:00.000-05:00

So why does democracy remain unsustainable and “at risk” in Thailand but has flourished here?

Re-visiting the "Ruling Class" Concept, Part 2

2010-02-02T14:19:00.000-05:00

So what is the truth about regular, average people?

The truth of the matter is this: we, the regular, average people of this country could get along just fine without the elite if they were to all suddenly disappear. We would carry on with barely a ripple in our lives. Regular people whose desire it was to serve the country would be found to fill the governmental positions vacated by the elite and we would probably be better off for it. Hollywood would be largely empty, but Reese Witherspoon and Sandra Bullock would have a little company (Ashton Kutcher and a few others) and would continue to make stellar movies. We wouldn’t miss the rest of them anyway.

However, if the regular people were to suddenly disappear, the elite would fall apart almost immediately. There would be no goods and services to purchase. There would quickly be no food to eat. There would be loads of movie stars and college professors, but no one to fill the movie theatres or the lecture halls. There would be plenty of luxury cars still on the roads, but no one to deliver the gasoline to the gas stations or to manage the convenience stores. The truth is life would quickly shut down.

While we can get along fine without the elite, they wouldn’t survive long at all without the regular people. We know this, but I’m not sure they do. We are fine with them believing they are better than us and will put up with their condescending attitude and ridiculous shenanigans as long as they don’t interfere with our daily lives. We will even allow them to develop a monopoly on the positions of power in our government as long as they leave us alone. But when their actions start to interfere with our daily lives, then we get mad and take back the power that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution says is ours.

This reminds me of a Thomas Jefferson quote: “'It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

WE hold the power. We are not impressed by threats or putdowns. We don’t really care if the elite look down their noses at us and believe us incompetent, uninformed and stupid. We don’t care because in the end, it is our vote that is counted and there are more of us than there are elite. So . . . a word to the elite: it is to your advantage to not bother us because once we are mad, we will stop at nothing to remove you from power. Evidence of this? Scott Brown is the newly elected Republican Senator from the most Democratic of states: Massachusetts.

But the Republicans should not see this as an endorsement of their policies. It was people registered for neither political party (independents) who decided the election. Regular people all across the country are extremely angry with both political parties and will vote for whomever they think best represents their point of view – regardless of their party affiliation. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if this fall people voted for whoever is not the incumbent – voting for Republicans if the seat is currently held by a Democrat and voting for Democrats if the seat is currently held by a Republican. I personally think this would be a good thing because I believe the more “new blood” we inject into our government the more it will represent our point of view.

Re-visiting the "Ruling Class" Concept, Part 1

2010-02-01T13:18:00.000-05:00

If you doubt the series I recently completed on whether the United States has developed a “ruling class” attitude, please consider the remarks made a couple of weeks ago by President Obama while campaigning for Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race. In the surprisingly tight race, the President made fun of Brown for driving an old pickup truck around the state while campaigning.

The President said: “Anyone can buy a truck” implying that the vehicle was part of some campaign scheme to attract voters. Mr. Brown’s pickup truck is an American-made, General Motors vehicle with over 200,000 miles on it that he has owned for years and since he has two daughters presently in college, I suspect the reason he still has the truck is because he can’t afford to replace it.

After the election, when asked what message the American people were sending to Washington by electing Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s old seat, President Obama said that the same desire “for change” was what voted him into office and said that by electing a Republican to Kennedy’s seat, the voters were actually supporting his policies. What?

Last week, the President said in his first State of the Union Address that he took some of the blame for people not understanding healthcare and said that he needed to communicate more clearly so that the people would understand the plan and support it. It appears that the President believes that we, the regular, average people of this country just don’t get it. He believes that if he communicated to us more often (he gave 411 speeches during his first year of office) or was more clear that we would understand why his policies are best for us. What? Is he saying that we are too slow or too stupid to understand what is best for us? Isn’t it more likely that we do in fact understand his policies and don’t like them? How can MASSACHUSETTES of all states voting for a Republican be a vote of support for the President’s policies?

This is just the most recent example of what I call the “elite” attitude toward the regular people in this country. While President Obama was not raised in a wealthy family, he seems to have forgotten what it was like to live on a limited income. Our family certainly continued driving our vehicles until they were so broken down that it cost more to fix them than they were ever worth. Only then would we get a “new” vehicle and even then it was never truly new – just “new to us” as my mother used to say. So why is President Obama putting down the regular people?

I am reminded of what John Edwards said about himself when he admitted to having had an affair. He said, “I went from being a senator, a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president, being a vice presidential candidate and becoming a national public figure. All of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want. You're invincible. And there will be no consequences." This is exactly the “elite” attitude I am describing – a belief that you yourself have become very “important” which causes you to look down your nose at other people even, in Edwards case, to the point of hurting those close to you. By contrast, a regular person champions individuality and the value of a single life, but does not turn that into a world-view where they are above or more important than anyone else.

President Obama’s remarks clearly demonstrate the difference between those currently in power in our government and the regular, average people who make up the vast majority of this country. That they look down on us and our pickup trucks is plainly obvious. What they have forgotten is that it is all of us with our pickup trucks who grow the food, and work in the factories, and build the houses, and teach the kids and so on that keep this country going on a daily basis.

The elite are simply not telling the truth about or to the regular people. So what is the truth?

Has the United States Developed a "Ruling Class"?, Part 5

2010-01-29T14:24:00.000-05:00

As I’ve written about in previous articles, I believe that this year, 2010 is a particularly important year for our country. This year, one-third of the Senate and all of the House of Representatives is up for re-election. The regular, average people of this country will once again have a chance to express their wishes for the future of our country. The belief that we have a “ruling class” in this country is only effective at preserving the power of the elite if we, the regular, average people buy into that idea as well. If we don’t believe in being ruled by people who don’t represent us and our wishes, then the great thing about our country is that we don’t have to be.

So what can we do to combat the elite’s belief in their entitlement to the positions of power in our country? We can vote. When you consider who to vote for, remember the requirements set forth by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution for holding federal elected office. Don’t let someone tell you there should be additional considerations. Why should it matter if the elected official is a bit inventive at times with the English language (as President Bush was known to be) if that person is honest, sincere and takes the responsibility of the position seriously? Shouldn’t it be more important that the person you vote for represents your views accurately and is trustworthy than where they earned their college degree? I believe so.

What else can we do? If no one represents your views, then consider running for the office yourself. Don’t believe the idea that because you are a regular person who has normal concerns to fill their day that you are not also fully qualified to hold federal elected office. Do you meet the requirements set forth by the Constitution? If so, then don’t disqualify yourself so quickly. Would you be willing to devote the time necessary to studying the issues, learning about the options and committing to represent the people who elected you faithfully? If so, then I would argue that you are perhaps qualified to hold office.

The final thing that we can do to combat against a “ruling class” attitude is to educate ourselves. I am well aware of the concerns that fill a regular, average day and the time that it takes just to try and get everything done. However, if we are not aware of what is going on in our government then we will be taken advantage of. Henry Peter Brougham said, “Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern but impossible to enslave.” If we want to remain free and to have a voice in the affairs of our government and to determine our own future, then we must find the time in our regular, average day to learn about what our elected officials are doing and to make our vote one based on fact instead of what we are told to believe.

The Preamble to the Constitution states that it is “We the people of the United States” who created this government and the Tenth Amendment states that any powers NOT specifically given to the government belong to the people. We, the regular, average people hold the power and that is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it to be because they believed that only if power was held broadly among all of the people would that power fail to corrupt. At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What have you wrought?” He answered, “. . . a Republic, if you can keep it.”

If we want to keep our Republic, then we must resist the concept of a “ruling class” and educate ourselves to the facts before we vote.

Has the United States Developed a "Ruling Class"?, Part 4

2010-01-28T13:40:00.000-05:00

How do we know that the elite have come to believe that they are entitled to the elected positions that run our government? I think this is manifested by a profound fear of the regular, average person coming to power. I believe this is the root of their hatred of Sarah Palin. Regardless of whether you like Sarah Palin or not or agree with her political views or not, you have to admit that she is a regular, average person. She was born to regular people and grew up with the normal worries of a regular family. She eloped with her high school sweetheart because they could not afford a wedding. She was on the PTA board and later was elected the mayor of her small town. Then she was chosen by her state to be governor and finally, chosen by the Republican party to be its Vice Presidential candidate.

She is not part of the elite “ruling class” and consequently, is hated by the elite of both major parties. The Democrats of course disagree with her politics, but the media and Democratic attacks on her have gone far beyond attacking her positions and have landed squarely in the realm of personal attacks on her and her family. Even some members of her own party have attacked her. Why? I believe it is because she represents what the elite fears most: a regular person with a chance to be elected to high public office. This frightens them terribly because if she is able to be elected, then other regular, average people might get the idea that they could also be elected to a high office as well and this possibility represents a serious threat to the elite’s grip on power.

As I have stated in previous articles, I believe that there is a growing divide in the United States not between the two major political parties, but between this “ruling class” of elites and the regular, average people. I believe that this is the basis for the Tea Party movement that has crisscrossed our country over the past year. I also believe that it is the basis for the people who went by the thousands to town hall meetings regarding healthcare and shouted down their elected officials. The regular people have become angry because the actions of the elite have now started to affect their daily lives. In response, the regular, average people are finding themselves forced to take time out of their already busy day to deal with politics.

In response, politicians from both political parties denounced the protests, the Tea Party movement and the town hall meetings as being ridiculous people who didn’t know what they were talking about. When asked by reporters whether the concerned citizens at the town hall meetings represented a “grass roots movement”, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi replied that they were nothing but “Astroturf.” She went on to compare them to the Nazis. Why would politicians dismiss regular people so out-of-hand? Because they are afraid that these people represent a threat to their hold on the power. That they feel “entitled” to rule is abundantly evident.

The elite have, in my opinion, certainly bought in to the idea that they are entitled to the ruling positions in our country. Having established that we do have a sort of “ruling class” in the United States, how do we combat this way of thinking? For the most part, the regular people of this country are content to go about their lives and don’t care that the elite feel “entitled” to the highest positions of government. But in our country’s history, there have been times when the regular people sort of revolt against the elite imposing their will on the people who elected them and it is at these times that regular people find themselves running for and being elected to federal office. I believe that we find ourselves at just such a time.

What does this mean for this year’s elections?

Has the United States Developed a "Ruling Class"?, Part 3

2010-01-27T14:41:00.000-05:00

How did we get the idea that regular people can’t hold elected office in our country? I fear that we have started to believe what the elite have been dishing out: that because we devote our day to the things that affect the vast majority of the American people we are not informed enough, or educated enough or smart enough to hold high elected office in our government. The idea that a presidential candidate needs to have an Ivy League education or be the smartest person around has become deeply ingrained in our society. If you doubt this, look at how President George W. Bush was treated when he invented some new words. He was routinely portrayed as not all that smart even those he DID possess an Ivy League education.

President Obama, on the other hand, has been widely praised for his intelligence. I also believe that President Obama is highly intelligent, but where did we get the idea that a person has to be of extreme intelligence in order to do the job of President? After all, one of our best presidents of all time (Abraham Lincoln) was a man who had virtually no formal education at all. Some will say that things were more simple in Lincoln’s time and that today the job requires different traits. Really? Has any other President had to deal with a Civil War where his greatest struggle was trying to keep the country together? No. Some will say that the economy is more complex today than it was in Lincoln’s time. Perhaps, but don’t forget that Lincoln oversaw the building of the transcontinental railroad and the formation of the first corporations in the history of the world (the railroad investment companies). Things were certainly not simple in his day.

I am not saying that the job of being President of the United States is an easy job. Quite the contrary. I believe that it is one of if not the most difficult job in the entire world. I am also not saying that having a solid education and knowledge of world events is not important. I believe education is supremely important to maintaining a free society. However, I believe a person’s character and leadership ability and determination to do the right thing and love of country are what is crucial to being successful in the job - not whether a person went to public high school or private school or where they went to college or whether they were the smartest person in their graduating class.

Why do the elite believe they are entitled to the ruling positions in our country? First of all, they truly disdain the regular, average people of this country and believe that because we are so involved in the daily business of just living our lives as responsible citizens that we are incapable of grasping the larger issues that face our country. The elite look down their noses at those who receive their education through the public school system and at state universities because this is the most reasonable and affordable option available to the regular people. They also look down on us for the way we spend our time: volunteering in our communities, serving on the PTA board and shopping at WalMart.

The elite have come to feel that because the regular people are busy with just living their lives, that they are the only ones qualified to hold the elected positions that run our country. For a number of years, the regular people have been content to let the elite hold these positions as long as they didn’t interfere with the regular person’s daily life. The elite took advantage of this because the regular people were just too busy to care whether the elite established a “ruling class”. The problem is that as the years went by, the elite came to believe that they were entitled to the elected positions in the government instead of seeing themselves as representatives of the regular people who elected them to those offices.

How do we know this?

Has the United States Developed a "Ruling Class"?, Part 2

2010-01-26T12:27:00.000-05:00

What requirements did the Constitution set forth for being an elected member of the federal government? First, the House of Representatives. Article 1, Section 2 lists the requirements to be a Representative as the following: twenty five years of age, seven years as a citizen of the United States, and, at the time of the election, an inhabitant of the State in which they have been elected.

Next, the Senate. Article 1, Section 3 lists the requirements to be a Senator as the following: thirty years of age, nine years as a citizen of the United States, and, at the time of the election, an inhabitant of the State in which they have been elected. Finally, the requirements to be President or Vice President. Article 2, Section 1 lists the requirements to be President or Vice President as the following: a natural born citizen of the United States, thirty five years of age and fourteen years as a resident within the United States.

That’s it. That is all the qualifications the authors of the Constitution felt were necessary for individuals to become an elected member of the federal government. They felt no other characteristics were vital to a person serving the country in the government and in fact, went to great length to spell out that every person was a part of the same “class” in this country. Is this, however, how it works in reality or in practice are other qualifications imposed?

While the Constitution clearly states that there is no “noble class” or “ruling class” in the United States, does this play out in reality or have we adopted the concept of a divide between those who are qualified to serve in the federal government and those who are not: the regular, average people?

I believe that the concept of a “ruling class” has crept into everyday life in our country. First I’ll examine this from the perspective of the regular, average person. I believe that most people find their time consumed with the tasks of just getting through the day. Going to work, getting the kids to school, making sure homework is done, getting the bills paid on time, doing the grocery shopping and so on. All of these tasks taken together are enough to keep anyone completely busy. As such, I believe that most of the regular, average people of this country just don’t have the time to devote to the careful study and research that is necessary to stay completely on top of all that is going on in the government and the entire world.

Let me make this extremely important distinction: it is not that I believe the regular, average people INCAPABLE of learning the complicated strategies involved in foreign policy or domestic policy or Constitutional law or any other thing necessary to running the federal government of this country. I just believe that they are too BUSY to have the time to devote to it. Because of this inherent conflict between the time that is required to just get through the day as a responsible regular, average person and the time required to become thoroughly educated on the issues and policies facing our country today, we don’t see many regular, average people running for elected office much beyond the local level. I believe this has allowed the idea of a “ruling class” to slip into our conscious thought. We’ve somehow gotten the idea that the regular people are kept busy surviving while the elite are running the country.

How did this happen?

Has the United States Developed a "Ruling Class"?, Part 1

2010-01-25T11:57:00.000-05:00

The other night my husband asked me if I thought a regular, average person could really do the job of President of the United States. I pondered this question not because I was debating my answer (of course I believe a regular, average person could do the job), but because I was wondering what happened in our country to make us think any different. Why would anyone think that an educated, dedicated, regular, average person couldn’t do the job? When did we develop the idea that there were people “qualified” to run the government and others who weren’t? Have we developed a “ruling class” mentality in the United States where we believe that the regular folks are to be ruled and the elite are the ones who rule?

While the caste system has officially been abolished in India, it is still widely practiced in reality. What does this mean for the regular, average people in India? In India the caste system is largely based on socioeconomic status. You are in the same caste as your parents and you can’t ever get out of your caste and move up into another. You are prevented from marrying someone of a different caste. As stated, while the system is no longer official sanctioned by the government, it is still practiced and enforced by groups of radicals who murder those not following the class system.

For years, apartheid was the status quo in South Africa. What did this mean for the regular, average people in South Africa? In South Africa the vast majority of the population was black while the small minority was white. The class system of apartheid then prevented the black majority from holding government positions and from having any basic human rights while the white minority controlled all of the power. Unlike India where the system was based largely on socioeconomic status, in South Africa it was based on race. Both were immoral.

The Constitution of the United States was carefully written to ensure that every citizen of the United States was a regular, average person. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, or any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

What exactly does this mean? The Framers came from a society where nobility received special treatment while the commoners had very little say when it came to carrying out the law. They often did not have access to a court of law in order to receive protection under the law and were, for the most part, helpless to improve their situation if they were taken advantage of by the noble class. Clearly the authors of the Constitution wanted to ensure that everyone was of the same “class” and that there was no noble class vs. commoner class as had been the case in England. They wanted the law to be for everyone.

So what requirements does the Constitution set forth to hold federal elected office?

Terrorism, Where Are We Most At Risk?, Part 6

2010-01-22T14:37:00.001-05:00

How would a terrorist attack our water supply? Think about your local water source. How difficult would it be to go out and throw something in it? Would anyone even know that you had done it? In most cities, the answer would probably be that no one would even know. For the terrorists, this means that access is easy. To obtain information on what tests are performed at the local treatment facility, you would only have to get someone working inside the facility itself. This also would be relatively easy when you consider that terrorists have trained as pilots and chemists in order to carry out their plots.

From this point, it becomes a relatively easy calculation to determine the amount of poison needed and, as we have already established, easy to dump the chosen chemical into the water supply. The result would be catastrophic. As soon as anyone drank water, which everyone would within a short amount of time, their lives would be at risk. It is conceivable that a highly toxic poison could be introduced to a local water supply and that within a week it would be through the treatment facility and into every home in the local area. This would allow a terrorist to wipe out virtually an entire city in a very short period of time with an extremely high probability of success.

So what do we do to protect ourselves against these two high-risk areas that will affect all of us should terrorists decide to carry out these attacks?

First of all, if smallpox is really our greatest risk because it would be the easiest attack for terrorists to carry out, then we need to begin immediately producing vaccines for the entire segment of the population who have not had access to it. Once this has begun, research needs to be conducted to determine whether those Americans who were vaccinated as children still possess smallpox immunity. If they do not, then vaccines need to be produced for them as well. Once the vaccines have been produced, then they should be distributed to the states and made mandatory for children to enter school and voluntary for adults. I believe if the situation were properly communicated to the public, we, the regular, average people of the country, would get ourselves vaccinated pretty quickly in order to protect ourselves.

As for the water supply, I believe this would be a job for the National Guard. What could be more basic to our protection than having a safe supply of drinking water? If the National Guard, which is by state under the control of the governors, were to post a few soldiers (the number could be determined by location depending on the size of the lake or reservoir) whose job it was to guard the safety of the water our protection level would increase dramatically.

Will this fix all of our vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks? Absolutely not. Terrorists and the organizations that support them are constantly searching for new ways to frighten us, hurt us and to kill us. If we are to stay ahead of their schemes, then we have to constantly be innovating as well. We have to determine where we are the most at risk and address that issue first and then move on to the next area where we are most at risk and so on.

We will never be completely safe. It is impossible to ever be perfectly safe. However, there are many areas that we are presently at risk simply because of our laziness in addressing the issue. It is important to remember that it is we, the regular, average people, who are most at risk and it is up to us to insist that our government do what it can to keep us safe. If we are to accept a certain level of risk, then let it be because we value our freedom to such a degree that we accept risk as part of a free life not because we are too lazy to protect ourselves.

Terrorism, Where Are We Most At Risk?, Part 5

2010-01-21T15:07:00.000-05:00

Again, looking at the criteria that make a particular option an “ideal” attack from a terrorist standpoint, I believe that smallpox is perhaps our biggest weakness.

After this, I think it is possible that our water supplies are the next most vulnerable target. Most cities across the country have a reservoir that is the source of their drinking water and smaller towns usually have a lake. These reservoirs and lakes are scattered all across the country and are easily identifiable as the source of drinking water for the cities they serve. In addition, they are all relatively unguarded.

An attack on the water supply would be a bit more complicated than a smallpox attack in that it would require some advance knowledge. First, a would-be terrorist would have to identify the water supply of the city he wanted to attack. This would not be at all difficult. Second, he would have to select the type of poison to use because every city has a water treatment plant that tests the water for various chemicals, elements, etc.

Because of this testing, a poison could not be selected that would be found and removed in the water treatment process. However, it would be impossible for water treatment facilities to test for every poison or chemical on the planet so the terrorist would only have to know the specific tests performed by that particular treatment facility. Finally, the terrorist would need a relatively accurate calculation of the water volume in the water source (lake or reservoir) in order to put enough of the poison in the water to reach lethal levels.

While it would be a bit more complicated than a smallpox attack, is a water supply attack a possible threat? Even though there is certainly more work involved in an attack on water supply than a smallpox attack, I believe it still offers terrorists a relatively easy target. Most if not all water supply lakes or reservoirs in the country are not only well-known as the local water source, but they are also unguarded and unprotected.

How would terrorists go about attacking the water supply?

Terrorism, Where Are We Most At Risk?, Part 4

2010-01-20T14:00:00.000-05:00

What would happen in the event of a smallpox attack? Those people old enough to have received the vaccine as a child would fare the best. As it has been several decades since any of these people received the vaccine and there have been no outbreaks after the time of the vaccinations to determine whether booster shots are needed or how long the shot remains effective, there would be some doubt as to whether these individuals still possessed an immunity to the disease. For everyone else, it would be extremely hard.

It is very difficult to obtain information on the exact number of smallpox vaccines the country possesses, but the best estimates seem to indicate that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta has around 3000 doses. Reports also say that along with these doses there is a list of names of people who are to receive the vaccine in the event of an outbreak.

We can reasonably assume that somewhere around 100 million people in this country have not been vaccinated (everyone less than about 38 years of age). While the precise number of vaccines available and the number of people who have not been vaccinated cannot be precisely verified, this is clear: there are not anywhere NEAR enough vaccines for the general public.

This type of attack clearly meets the standards to be an “ideal” attack from a terrorist’s standpoint. It requires a low initial investment, it is a relatively simple plan requiring no distribution system with a high probability of success, it would affect a very large number of people and the country is very unprepared to prevent or to deal with the aftermath of the attack. This is why I believe that a smallpox attack is one area where we are most at risk because we have made it very easy for the terrorists to strike at us in this way.

Regardless of how many vaccines the CDC is holding in Atlanta, it is clear that the regular, average people of this country are the ones most at risk because we are the ones whose names are most certainly not on the list to receive one of the few precious vaccines.

Looking at the criteria that make a particular option an "ideal" attack from the standpoint of a terrorist, what other ways are we most at risk?

Terrorism, Where Are We Most At Risk?, Part 3

2010-01-19T12:28:00.000-05:00

Now that we know the type of attack that a terrorist would consider ideal, we can examine the areas where we are most at risk.

I personally do not believe that anthrax represents a major threat because it requires an enormous investment of time and knowledge to carry out. Regular anthrax is not all that affective in an attack because exposure is highly treatable. In order for the anthrax to be highly affective it has to be weaponized to create a strain that is resistant to treatment. To do this, a person would have to know what treatments are currently available for anthrax as well as those in the pipeline that are being developed. In addition, they would also need to possess an extremely high level knowledge of chemistry in order to be able to create the weaponized strain.

Even if these difficulties could be overcome, there comes the problem of distribution. To be effective, anthrax has to be distributed through the air making ventilation systems the most likely target. Remember the anthrax scare in the Rayburn Building in Washington DC where the Congressional offices are located? Most of the anthrax was sent through the mail and while people got sick and there was a lot of time and money spent cleaning out the offices to ensure that it was safe for the staff to return, everyone was treated and it turned out to be a relatively minor attack. From the terrorist’s perspective, it didn’t accomplish their goals making it a less desirable option.

Although anthrax is highly lethal and if it could be distributed over a large area it could affect a large number of people, a good distribution system simply doesn’t exist that would allow a very large number of people to be affected and even then, as with the attack on the Rayburn Building, they can easily be treated. For these reasons, anthrax doesn’t seem to be a likely choice for a massive terrorist attack because it requires so much front-end investment, there is a lower probability of success and effective treatment methods are in place. Perhaps this is why after the spate of anthrax attacks a few years ago we haven’t seen any others.

I believe that smallpox is a more likely method of attack. Why? First, the initial investment is small because it would be relatively easy to obtain either smallpox spores or a person currently suffering from the disease. Unlike an anthrax attack that requires extremely advanced knowledge of chemistry, only basic knowledge would be needed to identify a person suffering from smallpox. Second, unlike anthrax, no distribution method is needed because of the highly contagious nature of the disease itself. Smallpox would spread itself quickly while anthrax has to be distributed in order to affect a large number of people.

This means that a smallpox attack has a high probability of success. Third, we are relatively unprepared for a smallpox attack. While most countries have continued to vaccinate their populations against smallpox, the United States stopped giving smallpox vaccinations to the general population in 1972 and the military in 1990. This means that anyone approximately 38 years of age and younger is completely at risk should a smallpox attack occur.

What would happen if a smallpox attack did occur?

Terrorism, Where Are We Most At Risk?, Part 2

2010-01-18T13:19:00.000-05:00

Having established that not all Muslims are terrorists nor is terrorism solely linked to Islam, let's break down the way a terrorist thinks. To do this, I’ll use the cost-benefit model taught in business school to identify which possible attack methods would appeal most to a terrorist organization and which ones they are less likely to find appealing. While a terrorist’s reasoning is psychopathic and evil, their actions still follow the cost-benefit model that rational decision-making follows.

To start, we first need to identify what the ultimate goals are for a terrorist. I believe it is safe to say that their primary goal is to kill as many people as possible and are willing to give up even their own lives in pursuit of this goal. Secondary to this primary goal is the desire to instill fear in people causing them to change their behavior or to alter their plans or way of life. Their perceived enemy is anyone who is not a follower of radical Islam which they have identified as all of the Western countries although they view an attack on the United States as the greatest prize.

If their goal is to kill as many people as possible, then we can say that attacks that will kill a larger number of people are more appealing to a terrorist than those that will kill fewer people. If there are different options that will kill the same number of people but one is easier or cheaper to carry out, then they would prefer that attack to one that is more complicated or more expensive.

The more simple the attack the fewer number of things that can go wrong which increases the probability of success. Therefore, the ideal terrorist attack would be one that was as simple as possible, because of the high probability of success, and at the same time killed a very large number of people.

Therefore, in order to determine where we are most at risk, we need to examine areas where a terrorist could strike against our country and citizens with an attack that is relatively simple (a high probability of success), that would kill a very large number of people, and is also an area where we are relatively unprepared to prevent or to deal with aftermath of their attack.

So where are we most at risk?

Terrorism, Where Are We Most At Risk?, Part 1

2010-01-15T13:32:00.000-05:00

At this time, and for the foreseeable future, our greatest threat to national security does not come from any country threatening to invade our homeland. The greatest threat is terrorism. As stated in previous posts, I believe that properly addressing this threat will require a fundamental restructuring of several branches of the US military as well as rethinking our foreign policy.

Over the past few days, I have written about areas where we are not fighting “smart” against this terrorism threat. This series will focus on the areas where I believe we are currently most at risk for terrorist attack, based on a breakdown of the underlying goals of a terrorist, as well as identifying ways that we can address these deficencies in our protection.

First, I believe it is important to point out that all Muslims are not terrorists. There are many millions of Muslims in the world (both in Eastern and Western countries) who practice their faith in peaceful ways. Those who claim that all Muslims are dangerous are blind to the fact that every world religion has had its extremists at one point or another.

Remember, Hitler carried out his atrocities in the name of Christianity. The Crusades were carried out in the name of Christianity. The country of Ireland has endured many years of internal strife and terrorist attacks all in the name of religion as well. The problem of terrorists is not unique to Islam and it is important to remember this. We need to enlist the help of peaceful Muslims around the world in fighting against terrorists and we will only hurt our chances of making any progress if we alienate them.

Therefore, in order to make ourselves safer, we need to enlist the help of people whose culture, customs and religious practices are more similar to these radical terrorists in order to gain a better understanding into why they want to carry out these attacks. We must also break down the way a terrorist of any culture, ethnicity, race or religion thinks so as to protect ourselves against their attacks.

How do we do this?

Terrorism, Are We Fighting Smart?, Part 4

2010-01-14T13:54:00.000-05:00

So what about federal law enforcement? We have the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, INS, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and so on. While they all may focus on a particular area of specialty, they are all federal law enforcement carrying out their various functions to protect the citizens of the United States. Again, the problem is that there are so many different agencies, important information falls through the cracks and isn’t shared with those who need to know it.

If all of these agencies were merged into one large federal law enforcement agency, with separate departments specializing in drug enforcement, violent crimes, immigration, etc., wouldn’t this also eliminate cracks for information to fall through? If the FBI and the DEA and the ATF and INS and CBP all used the same system and all of their information were available to all the others, wouldn’t this give everyone better tools to do their job?

In addition to giving law enforcement officers and intelligence officials better information with which to do their jobs, I believe a lot of overhead costs could be eliminated by merging the numerous agencies into one large intelligence agency and one large federal law enforcement agency. Each agency would then have the tools to easily and without effort share information with all other sections of their agency and if these two large agencies also used the same system software (separate systems but the same software), then the State Department could easily access both systems in their searches to determine whether they should issue a VISA to an applicant wanting to visit the United States.

I believe that it is impossible for the government to make us completely safe. This is just not achievable. However, I also believe that anything we can do to make the process of obtaining and sharing good information more simple will necessarily make us safer. Right now we have a half dozen or more federal law enforcement agencies and a half dozen or more intelligence agencies all with their own systems (electronic and otherwise) and reasons to protect their turf from other agencies coming in and taking over their cases.

If they were all part of one larger organization, then a lot of the incentive to keep information from others would be eliminated because they are all part of the same organization. It would also make the information sharing process infinitely more simple which makes it much more likely that people will have the information they need to carry out their jobs on a daily basis. Finally, it will also reduce the overhead costs because once something is learned in one department that piece of information is available to all other departments eliminating duplicated efforts and redundant job positions.

We can be safer than we are now. We can have that safety without giving up any freedom to obtain it. We can also save money at the same time we are making ourselves safer. In order to do this, we just have to be willing to do something the federal government isn’t very proficient at: making things simpler.

Terrorism, Are We Fighting Smart?, Part 3

2010-01-13T13:11:00.000-05:00

I believe the only way we can close the many gaps and cracks that occur between organizations, departments and agencies of the federal government is to consolidate them into fewer, larger organizations. What does this mean?

In the case of the intelligence community, we have the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), among others. The primary purpose of each of these organizations is the same: to obtain information that is useful in protecting the security of the United States and its citizens. However, each agency goes about obtaining this information in different ways although there are overlaps.

Most of the human intelligence (people on the ground as spies in other countries) is gathered by the CIA although human intelligence gathering does take part in the other agencies as well. Most of the code breakers work for the NSA although some work for other agencies as well. The NSA is also primarily engaged in signal intelligence which involves the capture and analysis of electronic date such as phone calls, emails, web sites, etc.

You get the idea. Every agency sort of has its “specialty” but also participates in every other sort of intelligence gathering as well. They all have the same primary goal and purpose, but use various different ways to gather information. While the section of the CIA working on the Middle East, for example, would instantly have information that was gathered by its department through electronic means or through people on the ground gathering information or any other means and that information would also be available to other individuals in other sections of the CIA with appropriate security clearance, the same information wouldn’t necessarily be as quickly available to someone working in the Middle East section at the NSA who was code breaking intelligence information coming in through their channels.

Herein lies the problem. Information that is crucial to national security must, for obvious reasons, be protected. This is why we have many various levels of security clearance to keep information secret. However, this causes all sorts of problems when it comes to agencies sharing information with each other. Why do we need so many intelligence agencies?

What if all of these agencies were collapsed into one large intelligence agency with separate sections for each region of the world that utilized all forms of intelligence gathering to learn everything they possibly could about their region and possible threats coming from it. There would be no problem of information sharing because they would all work for the same organization inputting data into the same system that was accessible to anyone with the proper security clearance. If there were no lines between the separate agencies because they were all part of one agency, wouldn’t this also eliminate overlap between the agencies (reducing the cost) and do away with the risk of important information falling through the cracks?

What about federal law enforcement?

Terrorism, Are We Fighting Smart?, Part 2

2010-01-12T14:16:00.000-05:00

What can we do to make our system for tracking potential terrorists more fail-safe?

First of all, and perhaps most simple and obvious, is to combine the “Terror Watch List” and the “No Fly List” into one master list. Why would there be two lists? If someone is participating in activities or communicating with individuals in such a manner that they are placed on a list as a suspected terrorist, why would we want these people to fly? Is there a terrorist anywhere that we would feel safe allowing on an airplane? In any terrorist safe to fly? I personally can’t think of any reason why we would consider it acceptable to allow anyone suspected of terrorist activities to EVER be on an airplane. As such, it seems to me that we have too many lists. To simplify, which would necessarily make the sharing of information easier and more accurate, perhaps we should just have one big list of people we are watching as suspected terrorists and that by being on that one list, they are prevented from obtaining VISAs to enter our country and not allowed to board planes.

Second, it also appears that a modification to the way a person can get on this list is necessary as well. If the United Kingdom has denied a VISA to any individual because they are suspected to be a terrorist, then I would think that would be sufficient to place that person on our list as well. Why do we always have to reinvent the wheel? If the British intelligence services believe a person is participating in terrorist activities, that is enough for me. I don’t need anything further to believe that this is a person that we should be watching and should absolutely prevent from boarding a plane. Why do we have to have our own research? Isn’t the word of the British or the Dutch or the French or the Germans or any number of other countries good enough for us to say that these people shouldn’t be allowed to just get on any plane they want to? I think so.

Third, I believe that there should be an airtight system for checking VISA applications against this master terrorist list to determine whether the applicants are already being watched by the intelligence community as a suspected terrorist. It simply defies explanation that the State Department would issue a VISA to a person that the CIA is watching as a terror suspect. Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing! Clearly there needs to be a more effective communication system between the State Department and the intelligence community to make sure that they do know what the other is doing.

Fourth, if someone notifies the State Department of suspected terror activities, as was the case with the Nigerian Christmas Day Bomber, another airtight system needs to be in place to determine whether that person has a VISA. A simple spelling mistake cannot be allowed to expose us to such risk. Various spellings should be tried as well as any known aliases as well as a system that follows up if new spellings or aliases become known to ensure that entry papers have not been granted to someone we already know is a risk to the American public.

Finally, it is obvious that a new system for information sharing MUST be devised so that the various departments and agencies of the government are able to access information that will enable them to do their jobs to the highest level. It has been often said that the terrorists only have to succeed once while those trying to prevent their attacks must be successful every single time. This is true which is why we must have a system that shares information widely across the government whenever possible. The gaps and cracks that occur between organizations, agencies and departments poses the greatest risk of someone being able to escape detection and carry out a successful attack.

How can we close these gaps and cracks between all of the many various organizations, departments and agencies in the federal government?

Terrorism, Are We Fighting Smart?, Part 1

2010-01-11T12:22:00.000-05:00

In just the last few weeks, there has been a spate of attempted terrorist attacks. A man has been arrested in connection to a plot to bomb New York City. Another man has been arrested for crossing into a secure area at Newark Airport in New Jersey causing several hours of delays and headaches for thousands of passengers. Authorities have still yet to determine whether his intentions were to cause harm or whether he just wanted to say goodbye to the woman he crossed the security tape to kiss. And finally, the Nigerian “Christmas Day Bomber” attempted to detonate an explosive device in his underpants on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit hoping to blow up the plane and kill the several hundred people on board. All of this in just the last few weeks!

President Obama ordered a review of the situation after the incident with the Christmas Day Bomber because it quickly became evident that there were several breakdowns in the system that even allowed him to be on the flight in the first place. The result was an announcement by the President that the intelligence necessary to have prevented the attack was available, but that the intelligence community and federal law enforcement failed to connect the dots to prevent the Nigerian man from getting on the plane. Clearly something went wrong. While the facts and precise order of events are still somewhat sketchy, let’s review them as best as is possible.

First, it appears the young Nigerian man first applied for a VISA to the United Kingdom. His VISA application was denied because the British intelligence services believed that he was involved in terrorist activities. It seems at this time they also notified the United States of their belief that this young man was a terrorist. Sometime later, however, he applied for a VISA to the United States and for reasons that pass understanding, the State Department granted him a VISA. A short time later, the man’s OWN FATHER went to the US Embassy in Nigeria and informed State Department officials that he believed that his son was involved in a terrorist plot against the United States.

While the State Department officials checked to see if the man had a VISA to the United States, they misspelled his name and therefore failed to learn that he did in fact possess such a VISA. The spelling error was discovered a few days later and corrected, but at this point it seems that no one again performed the check to determine whether he had a valid VISA. Somewhere in all of this, the CIA had also determined that this young Nigerian was in fact involved in terrorist activities and had placed him on the “Terror Watch List”, but he was not on the “No Fly List.” Being on the “No Fly List” woulds have notified the Dutch officials in Amsterdam that he was not allowed to board an airplane bound for the United States. However, because he was not on this “No Fly List” the Dutch perhaps had no knowledge of his suspected terrorist activities.

Furthermore, because the State Department apparently does not consult the “Terror Watch List” when they issue VISAs, the Dutch had only the fact that the US State Department had approved a VISA for this man to enter the United States. With no evidence to the contrary, what could the Dutch do except to put him on the plane? To their credit, the Dutch did apparently think that something wasn’t quite right because they placed a phone call to officials in the United States to let them know in advance that this man was on the plane and had a valid VISA to enter the United States. They apparently thought that someone should keep an eye on him or review his documentation or revisit the decision to grant entry to the United States.

As such, this young man was allowed to get on the plane in Amsterdam to fly to Detroit where he attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his underpants. Fortunately, the detonator on the device failed and while he was apparently trying to work on the device to repair the problem, passengers on the plane jumped over the seats and restrained him until the plane landed and he could be taken into custody. These passengers suffered burns (some of them severe) and had to be hospitalized (along with the bombing suspect) for treatment of their injuries. Clearly the actions of these passengers was heroic, but there were obviously several breakdowns in the system that allowed this man to be on the plane in the first place.

What could be done to address these glaring cracks in the system?

Thoughts On Dealing With Natural Disasters, Part 2

2010-01-08T09:07:00.000-05:00

Does FEMA need to be restructured? Absolutely, but in a serious and well thought out fashion that can address any disaster that occurs on American soil, not just natural disasters. Here are my thoughts. In every sort of disaster (natural, terrorism, foreign military invasion, etc.) the basic needs of the people affected are always the same regardless of what has happened. People will always need food, water, medical care and shelter.

Wouldn't it be beneficial to use a WalMart-style distribution center concept to have all of these things in various locations around the country that could be readily available to help people in the event of any disaster. Shelters could be built in a few locations around the country that were stocked with food, water, etc. In the event of a disaster, people could evacuate to the center/shelter nearest their location and public transit and mass transit systems could be used to transport those without their own way to travel or evacuate.

The Red Cross could then descend on the chosen location to be available to help people as they arrive. By having fixed locations set up around the country, a shelter in northern Texas, for example, could be used to handle the affects of a hurricane in Houston or New Orleans and also a tornado in Oklahoma City or a large fire in Little Rock. Another shelter in western Nevada, for example, could help people needing assistance after an earthquake in California or floods in Oregon or an eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington state.

Another facility in the northeast could handle a terrorist attack on New York City (as happened on September 11) or a hurricane in Boston. You get the idea. Since the immediate needs are the same regardless of the type of disaster that has occurred, it makes sense to have fixed locations already set up and ready to provide shelter, medical care, food and water to those needing help.

Once those most basic of needs are met and those first few critical days are managed, then individuals, non-profit groups and yes, the government can go about figuring out how to specifically deal with the disaster that has occurred. Because these events are unpredictable, they will always involve surprises, but it shouldn't take the federal government by surprise that people need shelter, food, water and medical care. We always need these things and to have made advance provisions for these basic needs seems only to be common sense.

Thoughts On Dealing With Natural Disasters, Part 1

2010-01-07T12:00:00.000-05:00

In the fall of 1989, the World Series was being played in Oakland/San Francisco, California when an earthquake measuring between 6.9 and 7.1 on the Richter Scale struck the city. Highways collapsed, buildings were crumpled and thousands of people couldn’t get home because of the damage to power lines, roads and other infrastructure. It was chaos.

The spring, summer and fall of 1993, the Midwest suffered terrible flooding and breaks in levee systems that were designed to handle the largest flood in 100 years. Large dams over the Mississippi River were opened fully in an effort to prevent the water from going over the top and destroying the dams altogether. Houses were under water, people moved into the gym at the local elementary school because there was nowhere else to go. It was chaos.

In the fall of 2005, the city of New Orleans was hit by Hurricane Katrina, a Category 5 storm that devastated the city. People were stranded on the roofs of their homes and were rescued by neighbors in boats or by the Coast Guard. In the end, thousands of people ended up in the Superdome with inadequate food, sanitary facilities, water and medical care. It was chaos.

What do all of these and many other similar events have in common besides all the chaos? The Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) was responsible for the response to the event and in all cases, the response was not really all that impressive. FEMA has always been notoriously slow in their response and also known for then hanging around imposing their rules on people who are trying to get on with rebuilding their lives after the disaster is over.

I lived in the Midwest during the 1993 floods and can attest to everyone’s relief that there were wildfires out in California that took FEMA out of our county and left us in peace. We weren’t happy about the wildfires of course, just that FEMA was gone so we could get back to normal life.

It wasn’t until Hurricane Katrina when literally thousands of people were involved, however, that FEMA’s track record came under national scrutiny. That an overhaul to the system was needed was abundantly clear. However, here we are more than four years later and not much has been done. FEMA is basically run in exactly the same fashion and if you are the next victim of a natural disaster, then you will be the next unfortunate people to be subjected to the sluggish, ineffective bureaucracy called FEMA.

So does FEMA need to be restructured?

The "New" Year, Part 2

2010-01-06T11:16:00.000-05:00

So how to our choices affect the coming years? Well, as the economy recovers and people return to work, we have to remind ourselves in prosperous times that we need to use our prosperity to reach out and help others. No one needs reminding of that during difficult times. In hard times families pull together and take care of each other like never before because it is the only way that everyone can survive. However, when things are going better it is easy to forget how important those family and friends are. If 2010 does see the return of economic prosperity, then we must also be extremely careful in the coming year to make sure that we don't forget the lessons we learned during these hard times and to remember to take care of each other during good times as well as bad.

On the political front, the election in November will direct the political policy of the federal government for the next couple of years. If the Democrats are overwhelmingly re-elected, then that will be taken as the public's approval of their policies and they will have the ability to continue with them for two more years. If the Republicans are elected, ousting Democrats from their seats, then those elected and even the remaining Democrats who were not up for re-election this year will be forced to change their policies because the public will have said that they do not approve of their policies. Regardless of your own personal position, the collective public decision this year will have a dramatic affect on the direction of the federal government and therefore will leave a lasting mark on the government itself.

So how can we make 2010 a better year than 2009? First of all, learn about the organizations in your community that provide assistance to people who need help. We learned through this Great Recession that it isn't always a person's poor decisions that get them into difficult situations. Sometimes it is the result of factors beyond their control. If you have the means, help those around you. There are reputable organizations in every single town in this country that you can give your money and time to knowing that it will be put to good use.

Second, educate yourself about what decisions are being made by the current government in Washington DC. Learn how those decisions affect you, your children and the future of our country. Learn who is running for the House and Senate seats in your district/state and study their views on the issues. Determine who most closely represents your own views and then vote. If no one represents your views, then run for the office yourself.

Anything really can happen in 2010, but our decisions to help those around us and to vote our conscience will have lasting impact on each of us, our families, our communities and our country. If the regular, average people of this country make good choices this year, then it will be a great year.

The "New" Year, Part 1

2010-01-05T13:26:00.001-05:00

The start of a new year always feels sort of good to me. I bought a new wallet the other day because my old one finally fell apart. Since I only paid five dollars for it four years ago while living in China, I felt like I got my money’s worth out of it and since everything is on sale after Christmas I didn’t feel bad about buying a new one. I also bought a new planner/calendar the other day and I always love how a new planner feels – all clean and fresh without all of the everyday tasks that will eventually fill the pages, like grocery shopping, laundry and house cleaning. When it is new and nothing is written on the pages, it always feels like anything can happen.

I started thinking about that some more and realized that it doesn’t just feel like anything can happen, anything really CAN happen this year. Good things, bad things, anything. The important question I think is not whether good or bad things will happen this year because at this point, obviously, we don’t know what exactly will happen in the coming twelve months. What is important, I believe, are the choices we make in the next year and how that will affect ourselves, our families, our communities and our country.

2010 will be an important year on several fronts. First is the economy. While economists say the recession is technically over, it certainly doesn’t FEEL like it is over. Millions of people are still out of work and until all of the people who want to work have jobs again, it isn’t going to seem like the recession is over. The recession really hit the fall of 2008 which means that we've been through about 18 months of tough times. I doubt anyone will miss 2009 as it closed out and the new year started and I’m sure everyone is hoping that 2010 will bring better times for all of us. Assuming that things do turn up on the economic front during 2010, the level of national stress will certainly decrease and the “pursuit of happiness” may seem a little closer to reality.

2010 is also an important year on the political front. In November 2010, we will go to the polls to vote. All of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate is up for re-election this year. This is a significant portion of our government and represents an opportunity for voters to either put a resounding stamp of approval on the reforms of the Democratic Party or to repudiate those reforms by voting overwhelmingly for the Republican Party. Whichever party you support, while this is a mid-term election (halfway through the sitting President’s term) it is without a doubt, one of the most critical mid-term elections we have seen for a very long time.

So how to our choices affect the coming years?

Thoughts On Professional Licensing, Part 3

2010-01-04T11:16:00.000-05:00

In the case of Hurricane Katrina, all the professionals were limited to providing help in their home state – and while the professionals licensed in the state of Louisiana did their very best, they were extremely shorthanded because many of them were actually victim of the event as well. This is nonsense.

Clearly professional licensing needs to be issued at the federal level rather than the state level. The exams for almost every single profession have been standardized across states so the professional licensing exams for doctors, nurses, financial professionals, etc. are already exactly the same across all states. The only thing that needs to be changed is for the state licensing departments to be eliminated and a federal license office for each profession created. This would license doctors, nurses, etc. to practice their professions in all US jurisdictions – drastically increasing the people available to help out during a disaster.

Think how much difference it would have made in Louisiana if doctors, nurses, psychologists and other professionals had been able to descend upon the state after Hurricane Katrina and go to work meeting needs. It wouldn't have mattered that doctors and nurses were themselves victims of the storm because the shortfall of medical personnel would have quickly been made up by the volunteers that would have poured in from other states. How many lives would have been saved?

In addition, financial professionals would have been able to provide advice for dealing with the losses suffered during the storm to help put people in the best possible financial position after the tragedy. How could this have helped people to get back on their feet sooner?

For this reason, I propose that any profession requiring a license to practice be licensed at the federal level rather than the state level so that these people not only can readily transfer their work to another state in the event of a family move, but also so that they are available to help out wherever a disaster has occurred in the country. This is only common sense.

Thoughts On Professional Licensing, Part 2

2009-12-31T13:47:00.000-05:00

It is nonsensical that all doctors take the same set of exams and must meet the same standards to be licensed across the country, yet licenses are issued by the state and therefore are only valid in the state where the license was issued. So a doctor licensed to practice medicine in the state of Arkansas can only practice medicine in the state of Arkansas and therefore cannot go to Louisiana after an emergency like Hurricane Katrina and volunteer to provide medical attention to those who need it – because s/he isn't licensed to practice medicine in the state of Louisiana.

This is crazy! All doctors take the same exams. All doctors must meet the same requirements all across the country to earn their license to practice medicine. Why can't they then practice medicine in all states and be able to offer assistance in the case of an emergency like Hurricane Katrina? Nurses face the same situation. They all take the same exams and must meet the same requirements, but because their licenses are issued by the state they can only practice nursing in the state where they are licensed. It is the same for EMTs, psychologists, financial professionals, etc.

My mother is a licensed psychologist in the state of Missouri. She is on a list for the Red Cross as an emergency volunteer to offer counseling services to people who have suffered as a result of some sort of disaster. She can sit with children who have lost their parents or adults who have lost a spouse or whatever. The goal is to provide trauma counseling to people who have undergone a tragedy. The benefit of this counseling is abundantly obvious, but in spite of the fact that my mom took the same exams and submitted the same paperwork and met all the same requirements that any state would require to license a psychologist, she can only practice in the state of Missouri so the Red Cross can only call her in the event the disaster happened in Missouri. While her skills would clearly be beneficial in the event of any disaster in any state, she can only help in the state where she is licensed.

This system clearly prevents the very people who can offer assistance from being able to volunteer their help at the time it is most needed. This is crazy!

Thoughts On Professional Licensing, Part 1

2009-12-30T14:49:00.000-05:00

In the fall of 2005, a devastating hurricane, Katrina, struck the city of New Orleans and essentially completely destroyed the city. Small sections of the city were spared due to levees, but the vast majority was under several feet of water. As people fled the floodwaters, many ended up in the Superdome for an awful couple of weeks short of food, sanitation and water. They were also dreadfully short of medical care. Why was there such a pitiful lack of even basic medical care in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? The answer may shock you.

As the storm raged, people began trying to evacuate New Orleans. They were slowed by flood waters, downed power lines, fallen trees, damaged roads and numerous other obstacles. Among the thousands of people who fell victim to the storm, were the vast majority of the doctors, nurses, EMTs and all other medical personnel in lower Louisiana. With the medical professionals themselves victims of the storm, they were unavailable to provide medical attention to the other many thousands of people affected by the hurricane.

At the very hour when medical personnel were most needed, the available medical professionals were also in need of medical help themselves. Hence the lack of medical care in the days following the storm. Was there no one who was willing to help? This country is full of doctors, nurses, EMTs, rescue personnel and others. Why were none of them showing up volunteering to help provide the medical care that was desperately needed in Louisiana?

The answer is that they would have lost their licenses to practice and could have been prosecuted for practicing medicine in a state where they were not licensed. This is insane!

War, It's Just Too Expensive, Part 6

2009-12-29T14:54:00.000-05:00

What does restructuring the Army and the Marines do to our foreign policy?

First of all, we need to look at our foreign policy. We cannot afford to do everything. We are building roads and schools and paying to feed people in many foreign countries at this exact moment and yet, we need new roads and schools and people are hungry here in the United States. While I do not think that foreign aid is something that should be done away with, I do think that we need to take a look at what we are doing and balance it with the needs we have at home.

We are currently trying to pay some countries not to develop nuclear weapons (Iran and North Korea). In the agreements worked out in Copanhagen last week on climate change, we are going to pay some countries to reduce their emissions (several third-world countries including China). We are providing food to some countries because they can’t feed themselves because their government essentially does not exisst (Somalia). We are also paying for a large portion of the national defense of other countries (Western and Eastern Europe).

Why should we always pay other countries to do the right thing? It is the Chinese that are dying because of the massive pollution problems in China, not Americans. While I am not against helping out other countries, why should it be our responsibility to pay China to do what is good for itself? Shouldn’t China bear the responsibility to do what is good for its people? And shouldn’t Western and Eastern Europe be primarily responsible for their own national defense? Why are we paying for a missile shield for them then? Shouldn’t they pay for it if it is something they decide that they want?

Why should we pay countries not to make nuclear weapons? I understand that it is extremely dangerous for the entire world if these rogue nations should obtain nuclear weapons, but why should we pay them off? Isn’t that what they want? Doesn’t that tell all the other poor countries of the world that all you have to do to extort money out of the western nations is start to build yourself a nuclear bomb and then they’ll pay you not to finish it?

We have got to define our foreign policy goals and then go about meeting them. We cannot protect the entire world nor is it our responsibility to do so. Neither is it our reponsibility to build roads and schools in every country on earth either. These are the projects for non-profit organizations of which there are many. This is not the work nor the responsibility of the US military. To make it their responsibility is to ask them to carry out tasks that are not within the parameters of a military organization – and to do so at great cost for the country itself.

While we would love for everyone to live in peace, this is not possible. To try to accomplish this will only bankrupt us. We have to first re-evaluate our foreign policy and take on only what is appropriate, possible and our responsibility. We should undertake war only when all other options are exhausted and when war is necessary, we must clearly define the goals and then pursue the option that will achieve our goals at the least possible expense. To this end, I propose re-structuring the Army and the Marines into small, mobile teams highly trained with specialized skills for accomplishing these goals. At the same time, the Navy and the Air Force can also probably be made smaller and more mobile as well – taking advantage of technology in order to reduce the size of force necessary to achieve foreign policy goals.

In addition, in order to improve upon national security, I propose re-defining the mission of the Coast Guard to solely that of protecting all water borders and the mission of the National Guard to be solely that of protecting all land borders to the country. In this way, the responsibility for ocean search and rescue falls to federal law enforcement (most likely the FBI) freeing up Coast Guard resources to focus on defending and protecting our borders. I believe that this will allow us to ensure our national security, carry out our foreign policy and when necesssary, prosecute a military response to an attack on our citizens or country – ALL while dramatically reducing the cost to our country both in dollars and in lives.

One of General and President Eisenhower’s greatest fears when he left office was that the Cold War arms race would lead the United States to spend way more on military conflicts than was truly necessary which would lead to deficit spending and a lack of fiscal responsibility - all in the name of national security. Based on the decades since he left office in 1960, I would say his fears were well grounded. We must find a way to rein in the cost of war. We must find a way to innovate in our method for waging war as invading a country just doesn’t accomplish what it used to. We must stop trying to fix the world’s problems everywhere because as much as we would like to, it just isn’t possible. And finally, we must do this soon or as Eisenhower worried, we will bankrupt ourselves.

War, It's Just Too Expensive, Part 5

2009-12-28T12:22:00.000-05:00

So what would have been different if we had sent several Special Forces type teams into Afghanistan with the goal of finding and killing Osama Bin Laden?

I believe several things would be different. First of all, I believe that Osama Bin Laden would be dead. In Afghanistan, there have been a couple of times where various units have come close to Osama Bin Laden’s location and at least one opportunity for him to be killed, but those units were ordered back by higher officers who wanted to have their unit capture Osama Bin Laden and therefore get the credit for his capture or death. Because our current military structure is fraught with politics and rewards individual officers whose units are able to capture high-profile targets instead of rewarding the entire group for having completed a goal, these sorts of shenanigans are bound to happen.

Instead of having hundreds of thousands of soldiers in-country while the general public has no idea why they are there or what their mission is, why not have several small teams each with a specific task to complete in order to reach the common goal? This not only costs a LOT less money, it also takes a lot less time. Small teams can be deployed quickly and are almost undetectable. Large armies take a long while to deploy and the whole world knows what they are doing.

Of course we must respond to an attack by someone like Osama Bin Laden, but wouldn’t it be a lot more effective if the attacker knew that we would send small teams of highly trained, determined assassins after him instead of what we have done – which is nothing? Invading a country used to be a good deterrent to war. If the country of Afghanistan had attacked us on September 11, then invading their country would be a deterrent to their doing so again. But with terrorists groups like al Qaeda, none of whom are Afghan and are basically just squatting on Afghanistan’s land, what do they care if we invade Afghanistan? It affects them not at all if we destroy Afghanistan. It’s not their country.

While we go about destroying Afghanistan, they simply pack up their small, mobile operations and move somewhere else. While we are tied down in Afghanistan, they simply set up shop somewhere that we aren’t, like Iraq. So then we have to invade Iraq. While we are tied down with two invasions and fighting two wars, they simply pack up and move again to somewhere else, like Pakistan. This is exactly what we have currently in the Middle East. The enemy is small and mobile and can quickly dismantle their operations and set up shop somewhere else without virtually little disruption to their goal of training terrorists to carry out attacks against the West.

The military fighting against them, meanwhile, is large and cumbersome, meaning they can’t pursue a small, mobile enemy. In order to effectively fight against this new type of enemy, we have to innovate and fight in a different way than we have for the past couple of centuries. We have to go small and mobile to fight against small and mobile. I believe well equipped Special Forces type teams with the benefit of highly advanced military technology and the ability to call in airstrikes or drone attacks would be a lot more effective than a large, expensive, slow, cumbersome army.

I believe that if we completely restructured two of the offensive branches of the US military (Army and the Marines) to a smaller more mobile group of specialized teams, we could not only do better at accomplishing our military goals, we could do so at dramatically lower expense. But what does this do to our foreign policy?

War, It's Just Too Expensive, Part 4

2009-12-24T13:14:00.000-05:00

With the nation’s defense the responsibility of the National Guard and the Coast Guard, the Army, the Navy, Marines and the Air Force become the offensive arms of the US military. It is here that I propose the most drastic changes in order to save money.

I believe the current military structure and approach to war is based on outdated ideas of how wars are fought. Our military is structured as it was built to fight WWII – heavy on infantry and heavy equipment. However, since WWII, we haven’t fought in a single war that was at all like it. All of the wars since WWII have been more like guerrilla warfare. A reflection of this is the fact that our country has not technically been at war since the end of WWII. Congress has not declared war since WWII. Every “war” since then has been a “conflict.” Why?

Since WWII, warfare has dramatically changed. Countries aren’t declaring war on each other and fighting over land anymore. Instead, “conflicts” are fought with various militant groups (guerilla groups in South America, terrorists groups in the Middle East, etc.). The war is really fought against these groups and sometimes the government of the host country becomes a casualty of the war as well as was the case in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The governments were eventually taken down because they were permissive to these terrorist groups being in their country, not because anyone from the government was actually part of the terrorist group.

Because of this shift in the fundamental participants in the war (specific groups rather than entire countries), the nature of war itself has also changed. Instead of large armies made of up hundreds of thousands of troops facing each other along a distinct “front line,” there are small skirmishes between smaller groups of soldiers. It is my belief, that if the goals of war were properly defined, that a large military force is not necessary anymore.

In WWII, war was fought by literally millions of troops on both the Eastern and Western Fronts. The winner was the side with the most people and the most supplies because they could afford to continue the war longer. In today’s type of war, victory isn’t won by having overwhelming numbers – instead a victory is achieved by reaching the goals set forth at the beginning at the lowest possible expense in dollars and lives. I believe this can best be accomplished by dramatically reducing the size of both the Army and the Marines and instead of the current organization of platoons, brigades, divisions, battalions, etc. organize these two branches of the armed services into small, specialized teams similar to the Special Forces that have specific functions.

For example, there could be reconnaissance teams, intelligence, sniper teams, rescue teams and teams that specialize in various types of tactical missions – e.g. underwater, amphibious, cyber interference, etc. Had this military structure been in place prior to September 11, I believe it could have been used effectively in Afghanistan. An attack like September 11 cannot go without response. However, invading Afghanistan with hundreds of thousands of troops hasn’t got us anywhere. Why? Because al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden know exactly where they are. You can’t hide 130,000 people in the middle of the desert. However, if we had been able to send in small teams of 6 to 12 guys they could blend in. It would be very hard to even know that the six guys are in-country, let alone find them.

How would Afghanistan be different if we had sent in several such teams with the goal of finding Osama Bin Laden? What if we had just said to these guys, who are the most highly trained individuals in the world . . . “Happy hunting” and turned them loose in Afghanistan to hunt down Osama Bin Laden?

War, It's Just Too Expensive, Part 3

2009-12-23T12:42:00.001-05:00

I am not advocating a policy that fails to respond to threats against the United States or to deal with attacks on our citizens or property. However, we have to find a way to enforce our foreign policy goals and protect our national security without putting our economy and country into bankruptcy.

First, I propose that we only set foreign policy objectives that are actually realistic and put our efforts into achieving things that are truly attainable. It is a nice thing to say that we want there to be freedom and peace everywhere, but this is not an attainable goal. Remembering my conversation with an Israeli friend, those are our values and not everyone shares them. Some people do not want to live in peace and if we make it our goal to try and force them to be peaceful, we will always fail. We cannot force people to change their values and if they do not value freedom or peace, then we cannot possibly being peace to them.

Once we have pared our foreign policy goals down to those that are actually attainable, then we can come up with various plans for reaching these goals. If there are multiple ways to reach the same goal, then obviously we want to choose the option that costs the least amount of money and resources.

So how do we protect our national security without bankrupting ourselves? I propose a radical re-structuring to the military. First of all, I would alter the mission of the Coast Guard to make its only purpose protecting the water borders of the United States. Second, I would change the structure of the National Guard to make its only mission protecting the land borders of the United States. At this moment, we have very little control over who enters and exits the United States by either water or land. The people whose intent it is to enter or leave legally, of course do so and we have elaborate facilities for dealing with these people, but for those whose intent it is to enter or exit illegally, we have virtually no way of preventing them from doing so.

Until we have a handle on who and what is entering and exiting our country, we cannot say that we are truly protecting our national security. I understand the need for an ocean rescue organization to conduct search-and-rescue operations for fisherman, boaters, etc. but I do not see how this is a function of the US military. I see it as a function of law enforcement. This is supported by the fact the all over the country, local fire departments and police departments have trained “rescue” crews. In the same way that these situations are a matter for local law enforcement, ocean rescues are a matter for federal law enforcement, not the military.

By its very definition, law enforcement has as its purpose to enforce the laws of the land – at the local, state and federal level. They also provide rescue services to the citizens as a service paid for by the tax base. The mission of the military, however, is not to rescue individual citizens. The mission of the military is to protect the country (defense) and to prosecute the wars the government has determined are necessary (offense).

To accomplish this mission, we must first relieve the military of any law enforcement responsibilities in order to free up time and resources to focus on the defense of the country. For this purpose, I would use the National Guard (land borders) and the Coast Guard (water borders) as the two primary defense arms of the US military. This makes the Army, Navy, Marines and the Air Force the offensive arms of the military.