The Cost Of Getting A College Education.

Ya know, I've complained about the high price of a college education and why the government hasn't stepped up to the plate to help poor and middle-income families get a decent education for their kids. An editorial in the Washington Post this morning helped me with an idea. Government should help more and one way they could, is the same way insurance companies handle pricing by Doctors, hospitals, auto body repair shops and a variety of other services. They look at what a specific operation or sickness or bent fender should cost in a specific area and that's the price they will authorize. What would be wrong with that for college? Certainly a substantial number of students need those loans to pay for tuition What's a college gonna do, stop educating? No, more likely weed out the waste and unnecessary. Streamline their education and offer what works and majors that actually have job openings when the student graduates. Which is another area where colleges and universities are wasteful, but wasteful of young people's time as well. Hey, if ya wanna major in basket weaving and decorating, fine, but pay for it yourself. And don't expect to land a posh job with a major tech corporation or law firm after graduation. Shoe repair would be another profession that's unlikely to reward you with great riches. I don't know if that's on the list of majors on the college website or not, but you know as well as I do that there are some pretty bizarre offerings. That's okay, but should the government subsidize a student who wants to do such a thing. It's as bad as an athlete taking advanced video game competition. If universities are going to award scholarships for football, then either leave it at that or make them take a course that will actually help them get a job when they find out they can't play pro ball. So when a college publishes a tuition of $25,000, the government or insurance company or bank can get it for $27.95.

What A Fearsome People We Are.

In Maryland, two high School Lacrosse players were caught with a jack knife and a lighter. They were suspended, one was arrested, and charged. The knife was for trimming the strings of his glove and the lighter was for sealing the ends of the strings. The state stepped in finally and expunged all records in this story. What's worrisome is having kids carry weapons in school or on a school bus. The school acted wisely, somewhat. In this case nobody was made aware of the fact that the penalty would be so harsh. Not the coaches or the student body. It was supposedly the decision of the school board of a "Zero Tolerance" rule. Why I bring this up is not the idea of being strict on weapons in schools. What bothers me is the total fixation of our entire society on fear. We're afraid of a lighter, nail clippers, immigrants, legal or illegal, hoodies, terrorist threats, the other political party. You name it, we're frightened of it and by it.  So we allow concealed guns in any place a human can go. No, that's not quite true. You can carry a concealed gun if you aren't one of the suspected, even if you should be suspected and inspected. Now there are some places where you're not allowed to carry. There should be a lot more. You're allowed to stand your ground, even if that makes no sense. Even if that's dangerous. To you and probably a lot of other people. Are we safer living this way? I suppose some few people are safer, but for most of us, we're decidedly less safe this way. But if we're less safe, why is it that state government after state government is rushing to allow such silliness. I think that before somebody gets a permit to carry a concealed weapon, they need a background check and maybe even a psychiatric test. After all, isn't the whole idea to provide more safety? Do we really want just anyone to run around with a six gun or semi-automatic they can hide under their jacket with permission to "stand up to anyone who gets in their way"? What if I'm in the line of fire? Well okay, what if you're in the line of fire? What if some legistator is in the line of fire? Would that make a difference?

Big Is Big, Not Good Or Bad.

Ho ho. Listen to this. Some of the biggest banks in the country are complaining that the FED is trying to cut them down in size. Now I don't know if that's true, but they claim that big isn't bad, Big is good. Big is good? Let's think about that a bit. The only banks that had to be bailed out were the extra big banks, right? No small banks were classified as too big to fail, were there? And which banks needed bailouts the most? Wasn't it big banks? Who got caught misusing the derivatives markets the most? Wasn't it big banks? Which banks bundled those toxic mortgages, sold them as good investments and then bet against them? Big Banks. Which banks had to send their CEOs to testify before congress? Whose CEOs couldn't understand why everybody was mad at them for causing or helping to cause the Great Recession? It wasn't the corner, local bank, as I recall. Those CEOs seemed mystified that anyone would think they did anything wrong. You have to give them credit though. They said they were innocent just as though they actually believed it. I mean, who could put on such a glorious performance and not deserve to be allowed to continue, unfettered, in their drive to make an "honest" buck or two. And who, in an election year, would consider stomping on such fine upstanding citizens? Oh the travesty of this whole affair. It's unsavory to say the least. How could anyone feel anger against these gentile folk and their simple honest institutions of higher interest. They've done nothing but to try to live the American dream of developing a bigger portfolio, complete with stock options and a golden parachute for every member of their boards. But them first.

It's Your Congress.

Well, at last. At last congress is getting after the over paid, under worked, privileged class. I speak of the Federal workforce. You know, the folks who actually make the government operate. The folks who figure out what it is congress wants and then writes the legislation and covers up all the mistakes the legislators make. And also the ones who implement the laws congress passes. So they're cutting back on salaries, pensions and health care coverages and they're raising contributions to health care insurance, retirement and a bunch more. So what, it's about time, right? As for themselves, they've increased the contribution legislators must pay towards their own pensions, or maybe they weren't paying at all before. Congress is determined to get the cost of government down to manageable levels. They want a pound of flesh from the Federal workforce and by golly, they're willing to give an ounce of their own flesh to prove it. I love the way congress goes about solving problems. Usually it means adding as little comfort to their own lives. Take retirement as an example, they serve a couple of years and they can retire with the sweetest retirement plan you can imagine plus they can then start on the speaking circuit making more than they did as a congressman and then within a couple of years, they can begin to lobby the folks they used to serve with in congress, right in the halls of congress with unlimited access. Remember the movie THE STING? These kind hearted, patriotic, constituent protecting, heroes work about four months a year, actual work in congress, then spend the rest of the time on fully paid for junkets to exotic vacation destinations, mostly in other countries and still collect their paychecks. There's been a lot of talk about class warfare of late, but the real class warfare pits legislators against citizens. Now you may not think it's class warfare, but think about it. We pay them to govern. They pay a federal workforce to do the actual work, out of our pockets. Okay maybe it isn't open warfare, but it sure is stealth warfare. Against our wallets. And guess what? They always win. Yep, heads they win, tails we loose. 

Democracy Is For Anybody?

I love it when a politician or wannabe just up and hands you a joke. And the joke is him. Well there's a businessman from Virginia by the name of John Raese. He's running for the U.S. Senate. His stump speech is about him, as a businessman, being required to place "no smoking" signs all over his business. He says, and I quote, " I don't like government telling me what to do, because I'm an American", and "Remember Hitler used to put Stars of David on everybody's lapel, remember that? Same Thing". And " It might be smoking today, it might be Big Macs tomorrow, then Coca-Cola the next day, then Jack Daniels, then we're in trouble". I'm not making this up. Nobody could make this stuff up. Hanging a No Smoking sign is like Jews wearing a Star of David? And Big Macs and Coca-Cola and Jack Daniels? The other things may be acceptable, but no Jack Daniels? I think this guy is onto something.  Or maybe on something. It's not funny to equate Jews being sent to their deaths, many of them, and trying to stop people from killing themselves. The first is extremely bad, but the latter can easily be considered good. And let's face it, nobody's gonna stamp out Big Macs and a Coke. Especially if fries go with it. Oh, and remember, they tried the Jack Daniels thing. The called it Prohibition, it didn't work. But this guy is running for the Senate. If elected, he's gonna get to have a say as to what laws get passed. Can you imagine? Don 't forget the signs he has to place at his business don't say you can't smoke. Just that you can't smoke there. Star of David lapel signs said you are taking a train-ride, you won't come back. I worry about the good folks of Virginia. They're the ones who elected a state legislature and governor who ordered a free-for-all on gun buying. Remember their new un-official logo? Virginia Is For Gun Lovers. What if a lot of folks like this bird got elected? And it's entirely possible. What kind of laws might you expect? Most likely a law disassembling the government completely. Mr Raese is one potential Senator, I wouldn't mind if they unloaded.

One More Unsolvable Problem.

Well here we go again. Pres. George W Bush reduced the interest on student loans by half. That was a really good thing to do, but it's set to expire in July of this year. That means interest rates on student loans will return to 6.8%. So Pres. Obama started a push to extend the lower rates. Mitt Romney has agreed it's a good idea. Wait a minute? Both candidates for president agree that student loans should be as affordable as possible? There must be a mistake here. Go back and ask them both again. No, wait, they might both decide to vote the other way. Okay, lets just assume they actually do agree. So what's next? We need both houses of congress to agree also. See? I knew there was a catch here somewhere. We know Obama is looking for an issue. We know Senate Democrats are too. We know House Republicans would rather give an additional tax cut or at the very least, reduce the deficit and debt. And we know that Mr Romney doesn't get to vote either way, so it's easy to say anything he wants. That's the one advantage a challenger has over the incumbent in politics. The challenger can claim almost anything because he or she doesn't have to back it up unless he or she gets elected. But once elected, all is lost and forgotten. But what about when neither is the incumbent, what then? Then anything goes and usually does. The first to go is the truth. The next thing to go is reality. For instance, House Republicans claim that we can't afford to pile more debt on taxpayer by keeping interest rates on student loans low. But we can afford to raise debt by giving more tax breaks. Huh? Doesn't more tax breaks equate to higher debt which equates to even higher debt? Or do we keep borrowing to cover the additional debt? Which then adds more debt. Both to the country and to the future taxpayers who are now students who are getting dumped on with higher educational debts to go along with higher national debts. If you ask me, we're going about this whole thing the wrong way. If we really do need a better educated workforce for the future, shouldn't we take a chance and support these future workforce members. That way they can get jobs in high tech, high pay industries, so they can pay down the debt and deficit? Or we can just add more debt until we have borrowed all the money. But what then? If we're going to borrow, and that seems cast in bronze, then lets at least make the increased debt be about improving our chances to compete. Whatta ya think?

Now, If I Were In Congress.

Well today's big news is that the Social Security trust fund will run out of funds in 2033. Much sooner than previous estimates. Two big reasons are all the baby boomers set to retire and the slow economy. Now the baby boomer thing is not new information and the economy thing is easy enough to understand. The real question is why hasn't congress addressed the problem? Well if you ask almost any Republican, they'll tell you the Democrats in the Senate refuse to do anything about it. If you ask almost any Democrat, the Republicans in the House are only interested in eliminating it. The truth? Neither party in Congress has the will to fix the problem, especially in an election year. Of course it's election year, or at least campaign year, every year. And this is a presidential election year, which makes it even bigger. But how in the world could they fix such a major problem as this? Joe Scarborough of Morning Jo on MS NBC says he could fix it in 20 minutes or less. And he was a congressman. Which is odd, because the biggest problem with Social Security is congress. Well actually it's not so much congress as it is the legislators themselves. See, if they didn't have to belong to a political party and if they didn't care so much about keeping their jobs, it could be done in maybe a couple of days. I doubt the twenty minute thing. Isn't it always the way? Somebody who once served in congress thinks they have all the answers and the members of the "other" party are the ones causing all the trouble. But if they have all the answers, why didn't they fix it when they were in congress? The answer, they would claim, is the other party. The other party's members wouldn't allow them to fix the problem. The funny thing is, pretty much everybody knows the solution and pretty much agrees with the solution. Maybe a little tweaking, but no big deal. No big deal unless you're actually in congress. Then the party lines are drawn. And nobody is drawing any conclusions. Or solutions either. It's a lot like one of those doomsday movies. The world is set to self destruct in twenty minutes. But, hey, we still have time for nineteen minutes and fifty nine seconds of drama.

When It Comes To Education, How Dumb.

What is it that you hear most about the poor? They're lazy? They don't work, they just sit around, get tattoos, smoke, drink and sponge off hard working people. Well guess what? To some extent that's true. But if it's true, then how do you go about turning them around? How do you get poor people off welfare? The one way we seem to keep trying, over and over, is to provide their children with low standard educational opportunities. Poorly equipped, run-down schools, lower paid teachers. We keep trying these models and they keep failing to turn out highly motivated young people. Just more poor people to sponge off working folks. Why do you suppose that is? Here's an experiment you might want to try. Take just a few of those schools and fix them up, equip them with the best equipment, give them some of the best teachers. I'll bet that by the time they get to high school, they'll be as advanced as the other kids in the more affluent schools. Well, maybe not quite as advanced. That's because they wouldn't have the other advantages of being affluent. Of having families that can afford perks like tutors, college tuition and other life experiences away from school. But it seems cheaper to just let those kids have the bad schools so we can go on complaining. After all, it is one of our favorite pastimes. And we get to do it without it costing us a single dime. The thing is though, it does costs us more in the long run to pay for the welfare, than it does for the better education. That's because we're less likely to have to provide welfare for the better educated. So from the standpoint of economics, we're being dumb. I'm just saying.  

A.L.E.C. Spells Trouble For All Of Us.

There's an organization made up of state legislators and corporate representatives. It's acronym is ALEC. The purpose of ALEC is to write legislation for consideration by all state legislatures for passage. It's a tax exempt organization, but it seems to be doing the work of a lobbyist. Which should make it inellegable for tax exempt status. But that's just a small part of the problem. It's really a front for some of the worst public safety legisative issues in the country. For instance, it has included the "Stand your ground" laws as one of it's favorites. Here's another one. In the drilling for oil and gas, the practice of "Fracking" where water, sand and a soup of chemicals is forced into the shale rock, deep in the earth to release oil and or natural gas, they have written a bill that allows companies to refuse to release the names of the chemicals used because they're trade secrets. So if your drinking water well gets contaminated by one of these chemicals, you will have no way to find out if your well is even contaminated at all, because you won't know what to test for. Does that make sense to you? Do you think that even the most partisan politician would knowingly vote for such a bill? Well, okay, maybe there are some, but should they? And would they if the public knew they were voting for such nonsense? Who thinks up laws like this? And the Stand Your Ground law? Who would be so dumb or mean to think up something like secret chemicals in the ground? Not the legislators, they wouldn't know about the need for such secrecy unless somebody told them to. No it coud only be the folks who work for the corporations who stand to profit from such unsafe laws. Well, and an organization like ALEC that's willing to help the cause.

Keep One Eye On The Gambler. Maybe two.

Say, what's the word on energy these days? Well, government inspectors are talking about relaxing oversight on derivatives, especially on oil. With oil, you have several cost centers. There's the extraction cost center, where you actually get the oil out of the ground, then there's the refinement cost centers where the oil is refined into gasoline, home heating oil and a myriad of other products. Next comes the distribution cost center. The tankers, truck drivers and gas stations, for gasoline. All of this can be clumped into the physical side of the cost of oil and it amounts to a little over two thirds of the price at the pump. The last cost center is the derivatives or trader cost center. This is where modern day, Wall Street, tinhorn gamblers play cards for profit and the other one third of the price of gasoline. This is where uncle Sam wants to ease up on oversight. Now you couldn't very well get along without the extraction cost center, The same is true for the refinement and distribution cost centers. But if you really wanted to get the price of gasoline and all the other oil based products,  like many plastics, down, you just might be able to get along without the last cost center. That's because, while it does add more to the cost of oil, it just doesn't add any value to the oil. The other three do add value, each in it's own way. The only value the fourth adds is to the pockets of the derivatives dealers. Not unlike the value the old tinhorn riverboat gambler added to the cost of the dollar. So if these dealers in gambling are relieved of oversight by the government, they will do what? Be extra honest? Not overcharge for their services? If nobody is watching a riverboat gambler, you might think that he'll deal from the bottom of the deck, right? Well, what's to suggest these modern day gamblers won't do the same? Because they wear pin-striped suits? But didn't riverboat gamblers wear suits too? Maybe it's the pin-stripes. I'll bet that's it. If one of these guys were to wear a solid navy blue, double-breasted, you might not trust him, but with pinstripes, he's okay, right? But if the government doesn't check to see what he's wearing today, and you can't see him, how are you supposed to know what to think of him?

Viet Nam or Afghanistan. Lessons.

I don't often find anything to write about on Morning Jo on MSNBC in the morning, but this morning they had a segment where they talked about the Afghan war, the casualties and especially about the wounded, both physically and mentally and our obvious inability to provide the proper care for them. Ariana Huffington (Huffington Post) and Nicholas Kristof (N Y Times editorialist) were the guests. Watching the show, I tried to figure out how come. How come we can spend unquestioned billions on prosecuting this war but can't seem to put together enough to support the troops who are wounded. Don't get me wrong, our politicians talk a good story. Even we the people are indignant when told of how these veterans are left untreated. But everybody knows talk is cheap. I think one way to explain the problem is to compare it to another protracted war. No, not Iraq. While it was protracted, it really is a mirror image of Afghanistan in this respect. I mean we need to look at Viet Nam. Both had histories of colonial warfare in which the outsiders finally lost and pulled out. For Viet Nam it was the French, for Afghanistan it was the Soviets. Both were and are countries with customs and a society we did not and do not clearly understand. Both had corrupt governments, both were a severe challenge to modern warfare, in fact both are more suited to gorilla warfare. A lot of similarities. The differences, for America, were/are that in Vietnam, we had the draft, troops served only one tour, at least for the most part, one and done and it was paid for by taxes. Afghanistan on the other hand is handled by an all volunteer military. Better trained, better equipped, but by far and away it's fought by multiple deployments and we're not paying for the war. Not yet. So when you have to borrow the money to fight this war from a potential, even real enemy in some sense, and you have to ask the same small number of people to fight the war, the public seems to forget the costs of the war. Also, the reason that far more troops were being killed in Viet Nam, is because of greatly improved medical handling of the injured. But similar numbers of troops are being shot. Just not as many are dying. So how did that Viet Nam thing turn out? We pretended a victory and ran. There are some things we do well. We nearly always win battles. We're not always so lucky with wars. Unless we're allowed to go toe to toe. And after we left Viet Nam? After we left, we didn't owe an enemy for the cost of the war. And while returning troops from Viet Nam weren't treated very well by the public, the government failed to properly care for the wounded until finally forced to. Does any of this sound familiar? America is good at fighting an enemy it can see, but not one they can't find hidden in the populace. We're getting better at covert warfare, but you have to choose what kind of war you're going to fight. Politicians have figured out that it's easier to get the public to go along with a war they can put on the credit card and they love to pretend we can build governments and create democracies where there were none.Therefore, I recommend we demand that any future war be paid for by taxation for that war. And that should include any conflict we engage in and nobody should be asked to serve more than one tour in that war or conflict.  To declare war should automatically carry with it, conscriptions. No exceptions. I'll bet we don't go to war very often after that.

Don't Get Caught Voting The Wrong Way.

Nanotargeting. That's not some new military weapons system. It's all about the campaign and voting habits. So instead of zeroing in on a tank two miles away, it means that the political parties are zeroing in on you. In fact, they're zeroing in on your left hand. Or your right hand, or your pinkie finger of either hand, or the thumbs of each hand individually. Yep, Somehow they've managed to figure out what you will have for breakfast on the morning of the election. Which side of the bed you'll get up on and what shoes you will select to wear. About the only thing they haven't figured out yet is the weather. But they're working on that. Here we are in the land of the free and the home of the brave and they know who you will vote for. The general elections are more than six months away and they already know more about you than your spouse does. Now that's nanotargeting. They may have even  come up with the formula for separating your heart from your brain on fiscal matters and social concerns. And if you think you can fool them into thinking one way while you plan to go the other way, they know that too. They know your waist size, shoe size and hat size, even if you've never worn a hat. Even if you don't know your hat size, they do. Just ask them if you need to buy a hat. They even know when you and your spouse were intimate. No matter how long ago that was. And they know the formula for becoming more interested again. Yes. They know all about you. But how in the world do they come by this information? They buy it. From your grocer, your favorite clothing store, the internet. Especially the internet. Even if you don't use the internet. What you buy on credit, even what you pay cash for. When you drive and where. But take heart. They mean no harm and they would never share this information with anyone. Well at least unless someone pays them for the information. You know, like a major donor. So demographics is a thing of the past. Demographics is 20th century. Nanotargeting is 21st century. There's only one thing that's got them worried. What comes next and will they be ahead of the curve or at least ahead of their opponent. What we need to worry about is that if they know this much now, will they need us at all, in the next technological advance? I mean, so far we've been relatively important to the electoral process. But make no mistake. They'd drop us like a cold date if they could.

Another what?

There's another proposal in Washington you're gonna love. It's the "Small Business Tax Cut Act". Basically what it does is allow business owners to deduct 20% of their business income in 2012. Now that sounds like a fair deal for business owners. After all, they do have a lot of expenses in the operation of any business. But no, this isn't about business expenses. This would come after all business expenses are already deducted. So after they pay the rent and the lights and pay all the employees their wages, what's left over, which is usually called profit, this is where they want to give a 20% discount on taxes. The claim is that it "would lead to more hiring". Problem is that businesses aren't hiring because there's not enough business to justify new hiring, not because they're holding out for another tax cut. And here's another interesting bit of information. Small businesses include any company with up to 500 employees. 500 employees. That's a lot more like medium size, if you ask me. And then there's the question of who gets helped the most.  The total cost to the government would be about $46 billion. Half would go to folks making over $1 million per year. Two thirds of the total would go to those making more than $200,000 per year. These folks aren't struggling. They're waiting for more buyers. Wanna help these small businesses? Create more buyers. So how would you go about creating more customers? Well some folks think that giving more and bigger tax cuts to the super wealthy will do the trick. Now that would truly be a trick. The other way of thinking is to get the money directly to the customers or at least indirectly by creating jobs. And since small businesses and even large ones don't want to do it without some assurance of more customers, then maybe it is time for the government to do the job. How? Well I can tell ya one thing for sure. Our infrastructure needs a lot of work. A lot. For starters. Also, maybe they could change that bill to the Small Business Employee Tax Relief Act. Those are the folks who need help. And if a small business needs help, tell them that if they actually hire more people, at a living wage, with benefits, they'll get their tax cut.

Lets Reinstitute The Chain Gang.

Hey. If a fine doesn't work, maybe a little hoosegow time might do the trick. Companies like BP don't pay much attention to fines and penalties. Actually I'm not sure about penalties. I don't think any penalties have ever been levied against them. Just like jail time. Now you could say, look, BP has paid $22 billion and has another $15 billion ready to shell out if necessary. But after all that, they still had a net profit of almost $24 billion. And that spill is only one among many problems BP has enjoyed. I say enjoyed, because they've always only paid some fines and then on to the profit banquet. Not that BP is any different than any other giant corporation. Fines are a part of the business plan. Now if you or I were to do something dangerous to the safety of others, especially after being told of the danger, and you continued to do it, what would you expect would happen to you? Does a prisoner's jumpsuit come to mind? See, the thing is, major corporations expect to pay fines. They set aside funds to cover that eventuality. So it just isn't a deterrent. But the one thing they can't do is set aside people for prison sentences. It's the one profession that doesn't have a whole lot of folks training for or applying for. And since big companies almost never get asked for a sacrificial lamb, you don't see a lot of ads in the classifieds for employees willing to go to jail, as part of the job description. Now small companies, they're in a lot more danger of having the boss end up in the slammer. At least they are if they break the law or intentionally endanger people. Maybe that's why it's so hard to grow a small company into a major corporation. It's probably hard to find people willing to go to jail until it gets big enough not to worry any more. What does a willing career corporate criminal do between jobs? After all, most small companies are owned by bosses who aren't usually willing give up their bosshood so some crook can take over the company. Ya just never know what direction that crook will take. Well anyway, if fines don't phase big companies maybe it would be smart to start sending some top corporate executives to jail. I'll bet corporations would become much better citizens. At least until their lobbyists changed the laws. Since these corporations are satisfied with smaller profits, maybe we should leave the matter up to the employees of the corporations. Either the CEO goes to jail and they get a pay raise or nobody goes to jail but they have to take a cut in pay to cover the fines. I'll bet that would clear up the problem.

When Is A Tax A Profit?

 I hope you're honest enough to be paying your state income taxes. Well, federal too, but especially the state taxes and especially in any of the sixteen states that have a special corporate arrangement. Yes, there are sixteen states led by New Jersey, who leads by far and away in this little tax special. Here's what these sixteen states do. For certain major corporations, a special dispensation is given. Here's what happens; The company you work for, deducts your state tax obligation from your wages, but instead of sending that money to the state, the company is allowed to keep it. That's right. Your employer collects your state tax money and the state allows the company to keep the money. All of it. I guess you could say it's a 100% fee for collecting the tax money owed. Of course, the state can then claim it doesn't have enough money to operate and must either reduce services or raise taxes or both. New Jersey looses about $186 million per year this way. Of course the state claims it's an investment in keeping the company and it's jobs in the state. But now the cat's out of the bag. Now all the other companies know about this little scam, oops, I mean plan. Do you think these other companies will want in on it? What about all the companies in all the other states? Think they're gonna wanna take part? Soon all the states will be giving away tax revenue to keep corporations from moving to other states. Then all the states can complain they need to cut services or raise taxes or both. Think all those companies want a piece of the action? Heck, I would. In fact, it's almost worth forming a corporation just to collect my own taxes so I can keep them. But why stop there. Why not ask the federal government to offer a similar deal. Of course the Fed already complains about not having enough income. But hey, then I'm definitely filing to incorporate. After all, if I print this out, it takes ink. So? So Snowbeard Inc in ink. Sorta has a ring to it, doesn't it. That way I could keep all my taxes. That's called incentivized profits. Taxation as an incentive profit center. Now all I've got to do is figure out how to include that pesky sales tax.

From Dionsaurs To Monkeys, We've Got It All.

Well, there ya have it. The folks in Tennessee have had their say. And they say that Adam and Eve were the proud owners of a herd of dairy dinosaurs. Now let me tell ya, herding dairy dinosaurs is no easy task. Ya gotta get up pretty early in the morning so as to catch them dinos while they're still half asleep, elsewise they git a bit ornery. And while you're at it you have to keep your hands warm, otherwise they're likely to kick ya or take a bite out of ya. What Tennessee has gone and done is to pass a Monkey Law. That is to say, they have made it possible and legal for science teachers throughout the state to teach creationism along with evolution. And while they're at it, they don't have to mention global warming. Now it so happens that Tennessee ranked next to last on SAT tests of all the states. My guess is that they won't be satisfied until they get that record. Dead last is the goal. They named it after the Scopes Monkey Trial from back in the 1920s when they proved in court that man did not come from monkeys. And that teacher, Scopes, got his what fer. Now I don't mean to suggest that all Tennesseans think like this. Many don't. But they've mostly moved out. America has fallen behind many industrialized nations in education. Try as I might, I can't see how this will help us catch up. When these young minds absorb this misinformation and then attend college with the hopes of becoming a scientist, they're in for a rude awakening. Because unless Tennessee somehow drifts off into the South Pacific or the middle of the Sargosy Sea, they're gonna have a tough time interacting with the rest of the world. They could form an alliance with the folks from Atlantis though. I think they may have some ideology in common. Now please don't misunderstand me. If you want to believe that God created the world in six days, that's okay. That's religion. And having belief in your religion is a good thing. But let's not confuse religious beliefs with science. They're two different subjects. I just don't happen to believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. There's no record of it happening in religious writings or archaeological research. So unless you find the milk pail next to a dinosaur and a mans cold hand in that dinosaurs belly, forget it.

How Sweet It Is. Or Is That Sweat? Depends On Your Job.

I know that some of my friends will disagree with me on this, but here goes anyway. There's been a lot said about income inequality, whether it exists or not. Or rather, is income inequality increasing? Well the answer is, absolutely. And the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and the Bloomberg Report all agree it is. I'm sure a lot of others agree too, but these I've seen. First a few facts. In 2007, companies generated $378,000 per worker, in 2011 they generated $420,000 per worker. But  during that time workers incomes did not go up at all. But profits increased 23%. So if profits went up by 23% and worker production increased by $42,000 per worker, but workers didn't get a dime extra pay, where do you suppose all the 23% profit went to? If it's just floating around in the air, I'd like to buy a big net to catch some myself. The only thing that's stopping me is I don't know where to swing the net. Not only are wages frozen, but in many industries wages are down significantly. Take Caterpillar as an example. They're hiring workers for a new high tech locomotive plant at $12 per hour. At $24,000 per year, you won't be able to send you kids to college or even a trade school. Maybe you can get them a job next to you on the production line. But if things continue, that $12 an hour will still be in effect and they won't be able to move out of the house. Gives a new meaning to the term, multi-family dwellings. Here's another factlet. Midwestern Auto factories' wages have gone from $28 an hour to $15 per hour. For the same work. For the same hours. And they capped lifetime wages at $19 an hour. So if you started there out of high school last year, you can plan on making no more than $19 an hour when you retire about 50 years from now. Let's see, that comes to about eight cents per hour increase per year. So let's do a little more math. If inflation remains at 2% for those fifty years, that comes to thirty cents per hour. At that rate, by the time you retire fifty years from now, you'll be making somewhere around $8 per hour, adjusted for inflation. Which is okay because minimum wage will still be only $7.25 per hour. Well how come this is happening to us, you may ask? You may ask, but they don't want to answer you. Part of the problem is that there are few unions any more. Which means there's nobody to stand up for you. So companies can pay you what they want. What can you do about it? Quit is about all. And during a recession, there's somebody else who needs that job desperately. It's called market economics. It's sorta like having somebody putting their foot on your neck and telling you to smile for the camera. Folks may think unions are a bad word, but that bad word helped put a lot of sons and daughters through college and provided for a comfortable lifestyle and an old age  people could enjoy instead of fret over.

Soda And Candy Gate, With Extra Fries, To Go.

Look at this little nugget of information. A study by the Agriculture Dept states that food stamps have substantially reduced the poverty rate during the recent recession. Why is that finding so important? Well if any program can reduce poverty levels during a recession, then it must be a worthwhile exercise. Let's face it, the recession caused a lot of people to loose their jobs and many still haven't found full time work. You know, the kind of work that can feed and house your family. But hey, if food stamps were able to make the difference for those folks, how could anyone find fault with the program. Hah! Well let me tell you how some folks in Washington can find fault with it. The way to find fault with the food stamp program is to begin to defund it. See that way you don't have to come right out and find fault with it, you can just make it go away without saying a word. What I don't get is why some folks would begrudge other folks, who have fallen on hard times, why they would begrudge a little help with feeding the kids? Of course the answer is simple. There are people who have misused the program. They've cheated and even worse, some folks have bought soda and candy with the stamps. What we have isn't government waste, what we have is much bigger. It goes far deeper. It shakes the very foundation of our democracy. This insidious cancer is weakening and tearing down the very fabric of our society. We have Soda & Candy Gate. If you think Watergate was bad and if you think people rightfully went to jail over Watergate,  just wait until you see what happens from Soda & Candy Gate. This will shake the whole country. Candy merchants will go to prison and children's teeth will rot and parents must be held accountable for this travesty of justice. Either all of that, or the rules could be changed to disallow soda and candy. Personally I don't see all the harm in an occasional treat, but, maybe pizza would make a better treat. Or broccoli.

If You Want More Industry, Shouldn't You Train For It?

Here's a little tidbit you may find interesting. Interesting, but not very helpful. It seems that government funding for much of the training for unemployed workers in newer fields, or any field is drying up. There's several reasons for that. The obvious is that there are still a lot more people unemployed then back in 2000 when there was $2.1 billion in today's dollars allocated while now only $1.5 billion was made available for job training. And in the proposed House budget, there would be further cuts. I guess the idea is that if you got laid off, shame on you. If you can't afford to pay for your own retraining, shame on you, or maybe it's "tsk tsk, that's a shame, but don't count on the government to help you". Now if the government really does want to cut it's costs, okay, but does it really make sense to ignore the needs of the unemployed or under-educated to get better skills in order to get jobs? Does it make sense to pay for more unemployment compensation or would it be more practical to train these folks for the better paying jobs that will, more and more often, be the jobs of the future? Cutting costs is always a good idea. Especially if it's in areas of waste. But in education, whether public schools and post high school education or job skills training, cutting costs will only mean lesser education. Hey. We're in competition with a bunch of other countries to attract industry./ Industries that need highly skilled workers. So if we skimp on training our workers while other countries expand their efforts to improve their worker's skills, where would you guess that leaves us? Now a selfish person, which I know you are not, might say our workers should pay for their own training, same for any post high school education. Don't expect us to pay for it. The thing is, we just keep on paying for unemployment compensation. That or let a lot of people go hungry and have crime go way up. That way we can train and hire lots of police, thereby resolving the unemployment problem, right? But what if by paying for the education and training, we helped get people back to work at companies that came here because we had better trained workers. Wouldn't that save us money in the long run? I'm just sayin.

Easter!

For Christians, Easter is what it's all about. For everybody else, it's not so much. But for Christians it's how we know the truth and why we know we're saved. So we celebrate this great news, even while the rest of the world goes on with their day like any other day. Wars go on as if nothing is any different, famine provides no loaves or fish for the children. Just knowing that we have been saved doesn't excuse us from sharing our good fortune with others. In fact it requires it. Remember, that since we are saved, we must still feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, welcome the stranger. Why? Because it may well be the risen lord we have done these works for. If you feel gratitude for having been saved, then lets all show that gratitude Goodness, this is a celebration that could go on all year. At least the showing of gratitude should. Happy Easter.

I Wouldn't Like It Either, If I Was Getting Rich On It.

Okay, here's one for the books. The current Administration in Washington has suggested some new and fairly stringent rules regarding lobbyists. The rules would state that lobbyists may no longer offer gifts or special invitations to functions like parties, movie screenings, receptions and the like, to federal employees because there's too much socialization involved, setting up too cozy of relationships. Do ya think? Well all the lobbyists take exception to such rules. After all, these parties, receptions, movie screenings, vacations to exotic spas and the like, allow them to teach government employees about the industries of their customers. The thing is, all lobbyists, representing every imaginable industry are complaining. That makes me think this is really good legislation. If it's "demeaning", "excessive" and "would choke off their ability to have mutually beneficial dialog with government officials", it makes me feel warm all over. Isn't the "mutually beneficial" part, the part that's the problem? Where's the benefit for the public? Now it's true that these folks know a whole lot more about the various industries than do the government officials, but isn't that a good reason for government to reinstate that government department that had specialists in the various industries. So that government employees wouldn't have to depend on the people who were trying to get special consideration for the various industries instead of the public? I don't mean to suggest that government should tread harshly on industry, but I don't think government should hand over the keys to the candy store to the kids from 'K' street. I think some input from industry is necessary and helpful. But as it now stands, most legislation dealing with any industry is written by the lobbyists, for the federal employees. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Not to me either.

Hey! Is That A Real Gun Or A Toy?

Any of you folks planning on attending the Republican National Convention this year in Tampa, Florida? Well if you're not a delegate, who will have to check their guns at the door, and you would like to carry your protection on your person while you wait outside for a sighting of your favorite politician, or if you plan on demonstrating outside the convention center, you'd better think again. That means no knives, billy clubs, shovels, hammers, pepper spray or even squirt guns. The only thing you will be allowed to carry is your handgun, shotgun, rifle, bazooka or, presumably, hand held rocket launcher. But don't get caught in possession of a slingshot, chains or chainsaw. I can understand the slingshot. David used it to down Goliath, but it'll take more than a slingshot to bring down the NRA. Ya see, the city can clap you in irons for carrying a paintgun, but not a colt 45. Or a Rugar blackhawk 44 magnum or a Smith & Wesson 38 special. You can even carry a blunderbuss or flintlock, all fully loaded. How about a WW11 era M1 rifle? Yes, but you may not fix bayonet. And no, you can't carry a cap gun. The deal is that you can't carry anything that resembles a firearm, but you can carry a real firearm. You can't even carry anything that can remotely be considered related to a weapon. That's the difference between the state law that permits carrying a firearm, anywhere you want, anytime you want and a city ordinance that wants to restrict firearms anywhere that it could present a real and present danger. But, the NRA will tell you that guns don't kill people, people kill people. The fact that, when aimed and fired at someone, the gun does in fact kill, is not being discussed. The NRA will also explain that if enough people are armed, then everyone is safer. Try telling that to our folks in Afghanistan. Armies have, since the beginning of the use of firearms, have operated on the idea that having everyone armed actually causes people to get killed. That's how war works. That's how the OK Corral got it's infamous reputation. It's not that I'm against owning or carrying a gun. I like to hunt and target shoot. So I carry a gun to do those things. But when I decide to go to church or grocery shopping, I'd rather not have to think about dodging stray bullets from the gun of some dope who doesn't know how to use it in a moment of extreme stress. That's what cops are for.

Hey! Check Out That Chick!

Well my little chick-a-dee, you're about to be cast adrift in a sea of un-inspected processing plants. The Agriculture Department is seriously considering curtailing it's poultry inspection service for several reasons. It would be a cost saver, no question about that. At least for them. And at least for now. But also, they claim it's an outdated program. It's antiquated and therefore it needs to be eliminated. As opposed to modernized. Besides the poultry industry is fully capable of handling the job, quicker and better than we are. Strong arguments to be sure. But let's stop, step back, and give some thought to this idea. What would this change mean to you and I? Would we save money? If you considered the savings to Ag. Dept. as those figures relate to you and I, the savings would be so minuscule as to be unnoticeable, but the increased cost to the industry in replacing those inspectors, assuming they will replace them, might well be noticeable because they would be passed on in the price of poultry.  Would there be a larger supply of poultry? I didn't know there was a shortage of poultry now. But it would allow the industry to triple the output. Do we need three times as many chicken breasts and thighs? Have any of you experienced a shortage of breasts or thighs anywhere? At the Colonels or nuggets at Ronald's or the King's? Doing away with government oversight has always had the effect of reducing the protections for the public. If not in the short run, then definitely in the long run. And guess what? They already seem to be feeding chickens banned antibiotics and more. If they're willing to do that, why stop there? So which is more important to you: three times as many chickens as you need, or better inspection of the chickens available at the market? Corporate goals are always about more profits but rarely about discarding potential profits by government inspectors. Government inspectors are supposed to be about better food safety, but not so much about profits. So which side do you think the corporations are on? So which side are you on? If  we need more birds on the shelves, by all means increase production. If we increase production, by all means increase inspection. If our corporations need bigger profits, modernize, cut staff and have at it. But let's not skimp on safety.

You Do It. No, You. No, You. No, You.

Ya know, America is a pretty good place to live. And do ya know why? It's because everybody else who lives here are pretty much good people. Oh yeah, there are some folks who are less than desirable, but by and large, most folks are okay people. We do have our disagreements to be sure, but mostly they're political in nature. See, we have some folks who are called Progressives and some other folks who are called Conservatives. And still others who are called Independant. They're the ones who used to be Progressives or Conservatives and got fed up with their former groups. Nobody likes them very much, but everybody needs them. Now the Progressives and the Conservatives are always complaining about one another and the things they want to do. The truth of the matter though, is that both are wrong about half the time and both are correct about half the time. And the thing is, if they were honest about it, both would admit they're wrong about half the time. But that's the rub. That's why, in Washington, neither side can get anything, or very much done. Because neither side is willing to admit they're wrong about half the time. Now there are some very good reasons why they won't admit it. Can you imagine either side trying to accomplish anything if they came out and said they're only right half the time? But the number one reason neither side will admit to being wrong half the time is that neither side is willing to go first. It's sorta like a bunch of kids sitting around the backyard daring the others to go first. Then double daring them. Except that with kids, eventually a few actually get up the courage to go ahead and do it. And then they all jump in and do it. But with politicians, nobody has that kind of courage. If only some of our legislators would find that childish courage, they could all admit to not having all the correct answers. And none would have to be embarassed by it. Oh well, we can't all be perfect. We just like to pretend we are.

Okay Folks. Show Us What Ya Got.

Let's see what's new in the news today. Oh good. The Supreme Court is poking it's nose in our business again. In a 5-4 vote, they have decided that it would be a good idea if the police were given the right to strip-search any person who is arrested for any offense. That's strip-search as in no clothes, as in I hope it doesn't happen next winter along a windy, cold, snowy, busy highway. Do ya think cops will be strip-searching folks for jay-walking? So if you pass a bad check, you're going to be up against the wall with your aft and even amid-ship showing. Just you look out if somebody says "up periscope". Maybe that's fitting. Now, I can see strip-searches for people who are caught shop-lifting. After all, you have to find all the stolen merchandise, don't ya? Especially TVs and such. What I don't see, is how this will work for people caught in a shootout in one of these Stand Your Ground law states. As far as I can tell, nobody would be subject to the strip-search or both would. And what about suicide attempts? If a guy is up on the ledge of a sky-scraper threatening to jump, who's going to volunteer to go up and conduct that strip-search? The court was concerned about gangs as part of the reasoning for the searches. Does that mean there will be group strip-searches? Is that wise? I mean, it's bad enough that somebody might be caught with their pants halfway down, as is the style for many, but do we really want them all the way down? And what about middle aged and older folks? Who's gonna want to watch that show? If a pretty young girl is driving her convertible down the highway, just how many times should she be stopped and searched before she winds up engaged. To the law enforcement officer. Or a passing motorist. Or what about a mother with an infant in the car? Who gets searched? Maybe the infant should be the one. After all, maybe it needs to be changed anyway. Cleanup is optional for the cop. Now honestly and seriously folks, I can see times when it might be a good idea, but as is often the case, our favorite U.S. Supreme Court seems to have gone a bit too far. I mean, they're way past second base on this one.

Internships Are A Wonderful Opportunity. Except In China.

Ahh yes. Moms and dads all over the world send their kids off to schools of higher learning in the hopes of assuring them of a rich and fulfilling future in the field of their choice. Well, except in China. In China, moms and dads send their children off to schools of higher learning so they can get invited to do internships with companies where they can learn life-long skills on production lines working 10 to 12 hour a day, 7 days a week for 3 or 4 months. The kids accept these invitations to become interns because they're promised they can continue they're schooling. Presumably the idea is that, no internship, no school. Now I suspect these are unpaid internships. Otherwise, why bother to push the internships over full employment. I should also point out that what little oversight there is on employment rights in China, don't apply to interns. It's a sweet deal for American companies like Apple. Apple's Chinese company "employs" over 75,000 interns per year. They work on production lines so the internships relate to and enhances the educational experience in college majors like music, history or political science and a host of other unrelated fields. Ya gotta hand it to China. They know how to keep the costs down in industry. Cotton plantations in the southern part of America had found the same cost saving opportunity in the early part of our history. While many in the south don't remember this approach to economic growth, it was called slavery. I don't mean to suggest China practices the same economic strategies, because they don't grow that much cotton. But they haven't missed the basic principals that were applied. Nor, apparently, has Apple. And the bonus is that the practice isn't illegal in either country. I mean it's legal to do it in China and it's not illegal in America for companies like Apple to do it in China. It's a small thing, but they seem to like it that way, for the company, not necessarily for the student. For the student, it's long hours, hard work and no pay. Just the sort of thing you might look forward to if you want to learn how to put this dot on that spot 12 hours a day 7 days a week for 3 or 4 months a year, every year you're in school. Sort of makes ya wanna become a dropout, doesn't it?

The Problem With Problems.

Ya know, there only three problems with America. The problem with the three problems is that all three are just one problem. Well, what is it or what are they? The problem with the three problems is politics. But the three problems can fix the problem if we only would make the necessary changes to the problems. The three problems are: closed primary elections, campaign financing and congressional redistricting. Now any one of the three could, if solved, improve the system immensely, but solving all three should solve the problem. Of course that doesn't mean that progressives and conservatives wouldn't disagree any more. Actually, nothing in the world could change that. But a completely open primary election would eliminate the party stranglehold on elections because the top two vote getters would be the nominees for the general election. Could be two Conservatives or two Progressives or two Independents or any combination thereof. Once the political parties don't control elections anymore, we'd see substantial improvement. If we put in place some real financial campaign reform that allowed for a reasonable ceiling on campaign spending or government funding only, with teeth in it and an FEC that didn't deadlock on everything, we'd see substantial improvement. If congressional districts were actually formed to represent a complete community or region instead of a gerrymandered system of squirming and wreathing sections designed to give special consideration to particular parties, you'd begin to see substantial improvement. That would leave just one problem to solve. It's the hardest problem to solve and that's why I left it to last. I left it to last because I always put off to last anything that's hard to do. The last problem is getting politicians to go along with these changes. There is no solution to this problem because politicians would be unable to easily find a way to circumvent the solutions. None of these solutions are in the interests of politicians. They're only in the best interests of the citizens. Now do ya see why I left this problem til last?