I've been reading about income disparities. Pretty exciting, huh? Yep, and the thing is that the greater the growth of disparity in a country, the slower the growth in the economy. So in other words, as the rich get richer and the rest get poorer, there's less business. In other words, if most of the people become too poor to buy the nice products companies make, the less money the companies make. In other words, the less business a company gets, the more employees they have to fire. In other words, the more unemployed who can't afford to buy the products the companies make, and so on. It really does make sense.
So when you hear somebody suggest that the rich (job creators) need lower taxes so they have money to invest, you have to wonder, invest in what? Maybe another yacht? The next thing you hear is "class warfare". But that's not what I'm looking to do. I like the class of people I hang around with. I'll bet you do too.
Actually what I'm suggesting is first lets put the most money where it'll do the most good. In the pockets of the people who will spend it on those nice products companies make. That is to say, not the rich, but the rest. As soon as I say that, I hear "Class Warfare" again, but that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that if more people can afford to buy the products the companies make, then the rich get richer and the rest do better too. Now that makes sense, doesn't it?
Here's another thing to think about, if something sounds like it makes sense, it usually does make sense, but if something doesn't make sense, it usually doesn't make sense. Common sense tells me giving to the rich and taking from the poor just doesn't make sense, but giving to the poor so everybody can do better, works for me. How about you?
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Signs Of The Future.
Our system of education is under attack. No I don't mean armed teaching terrorists have descended on our schools. What I do mean is there is a concerted push to take funds away from public schools and provide private schools with more funding. What will this accomplish? I can tell you it will increase value of a private school education. Those students that are financially able to attend better funded private schools will undoubtedly get more attention and receive a better education.
But what about public education? Well, schools who are determined to be failing will receive less funding because of vouchers that take students and cash out of the system for them. As a result they can only sink lower. Better performing public schools will, never the less, continue to be funded lower and will eventually sink to a lower level.
The idea that teachers should be graded by government is an insult to the very people we entrust our future to. We need to have the brightest and best people we can find to replace teachers who will be retiring.
If you have a company, and you want the best and smartest employees, do you tell them they'll undergo evaluations on a continual basis or do you tell them you want them to do their best work? In other words, do you say we don't trust you or do we say, we know you can do it so go to it? Again, if you have a company and you want your leaders to be the best you can get, do you pay them a low wage and treat them like cheap laborers or do you pay them a high wage and treat them special?
If we want our young people to get a better education, wouldn't it make sense to get the best teachers we can find, create the best educational environment we can, treat those teachers the best we can, give them the best tools for teaching we can and pay them like they were the best? It might not even be a bad idea to show them the respect you would give any successful person in the field they represent.
Yes, we need ways to remove poor teachers, and yes there are financial constraints, but if this country wants to continue to be a leader, the leader in the world, we need to find ways to meet the needs and show the respect to the teachers that will lead the way to that future.
Governments, federal, state or local can't lead us there, but teachers can. All that governments can do is provide the tools for the teachers The big question is, will we demand our governments do that?
But what about public education? Well, schools who are determined to be failing will receive less funding because of vouchers that take students and cash out of the system for them. As a result they can only sink lower. Better performing public schools will, never the less, continue to be funded lower and will eventually sink to a lower level.
The idea that teachers should be graded by government is an insult to the very people we entrust our future to. We need to have the brightest and best people we can find to replace teachers who will be retiring.
If you have a company, and you want the best and smartest employees, do you tell them they'll undergo evaluations on a continual basis or do you tell them you want them to do their best work? In other words, do you say we don't trust you or do we say, we know you can do it so go to it? Again, if you have a company and you want your leaders to be the best you can get, do you pay them a low wage and treat them like cheap laborers or do you pay them a high wage and treat them special?
If we want our young people to get a better education, wouldn't it make sense to get the best teachers we can find, create the best educational environment we can, treat those teachers the best we can, give them the best tools for teaching we can and pay them like they were the best? It might not even be a bad idea to show them the respect you would give any successful person in the field they represent.
Yes, we need ways to remove poor teachers, and yes there are financial constraints, but if this country wants to continue to be a leader, the leader in the world, we need to find ways to meet the needs and show the respect to the teachers that will lead the way to that future.
Governments, federal, state or local can't lead us there, but teachers can. All that governments can do is provide the tools for the teachers The big question is, will we demand our governments do that?
Saturday, October 13, 2012
A Fairy Tale You Can Believe.
Once upon a time there was a Federal Reserve that decided to help the unfortunate people who didn't own a home. So they decided to spend $40 billion a month on lowering interest rates on Mortgages. But, Once upon a time there were greedy bankers who thanked the fairy Godmother, Federal Reserve, for the extra $40 billion but decided they liked the $40 billion more in profits then they did as $40 billion lower interest rates. And after all, the Fairy Godmother, Federal Reserve, couldn't make the bankers reduce the interest rates. Whatever could the Fairy Godmother, Federal Reserve, do? The only thing they could do was to go to Uncle Congress and ask Uncle Congress to pass some sort of legislation to force the big bad bankers to use that $40 billion to lower interest rates. Now Uncle Congress could do that. Uncle Congress could write a law that requires the big bad bankers to play fair. There's only one problem with that solution. Too many Uncle Congresses are in the realm of the big bad bankers and secretly do whatever the big bad bankers tell them, to do. But even more important than that, they are embroiled in an election run-up. And what with all the extra money being spent on ads by all the wealthy big bad Super PACs, nobody can hear our fairy Godmother, Federal Reserve, right now. So the way this happy ending comes down is the Fairy Godmother, Federal Reserve, will continue to put $40 billion into the hands of the big bad bankers, who will continue to put the $40 billion in their pockets, while the Uncle Congress continues to be conveniently oblivious to what's happening. Meanwhile everyone lived happily, if poorer, ever after. Except for the big bad bankers and uncle Congress, who have gone to their winter place in the Bahamas.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
When Is It Proper To Lie?
Ya know what the biggest problem with our political elective process is? Well, while there are a lot of problems with the process including everything from unchecked funding to political parties, the really big, in fact the biggest, problem is the primary election process. See, in a primary, you are allowed to vote only for the candidates within your own party, except in a very few states that allow open primaries. What this means, and everyone agrees, is that you have to "play to the passions of the base."
Then and only after the primaries, can a candidate turn himself to the mood of the general electorate, you and me. In other words, if whether you believe a word you say or not, in the primaries you have to say what the more extreme of your party wants to hear. Then in the general election you have to gear your statements to what the wider public wants to hear. What this process does, is to force politicians to become liars. Although that's not been proven to be a difficult task for most. That is unless you are truly an honest man, in which case, your statements will not change.
The problem with that is if you are honest, it's unlikely you can get the nomination, or if nominated, you would have no chance of getting elected. It's not always been that way. But of late, we've become a country of extremes. And by that I don't mean the weather. Although we have been experiencing severe extremes in the weather too. But there's no research that suggests the two are connected. So what we have is a scenario in which you're likely to get a liar for a president unless he's already served four years and can't lie himself out of what he's done.
Wouldn't it make sense to have open primaries in all states and have the top two vote getters face off in the general election? That way all candidates would be more likely to run on an ideology they actually believe in. Because, the thing is that, when you lie you have to keep track of what you said yesterday. And then be prepared to defend that lie.
Then and only after the primaries, can a candidate turn himself to the mood of the general electorate, you and me. In other words, if whether you believe a word you say or not, in the primaries you have to say what the more extreme of your party wants to hear. Then in the general election you have to gear your statements to what the wider public wants to hear. What this process does, is to force politicians to become liars. Although that's not been proven to be a difficult task for most. That is unless you are truly an honest man, in which case, your statements will not change.
The problem with that is if you are honest, it's unlikely you can get the nomination, or if nominated, you would have no chance of getting elected. It's not always been that way. But of late, we've become a country of extremes. And by that I don't mean the weather. Although we have been experiencing severe extremes in the weather too. But there's no research that suggests the two are connected. So what we have is a scenario in which you're likely to get a liar for a president unless he's already served four years and can't lie himself out of what he's done.
Wouldn't it make sense to have open primaries in all states and have the top two vote getters face off in the general election? That way all candidates would be more likely to run on an ideology they actually believe in. Because, the thing is that, when you lie you have to keep track of what you said yesterday. And then be prepared to defend that lie.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
CyberSecurity Is For Sissies.
What do you know about cyber attacks? Me either. I guess the simplistic answer is that it would be like getting a bug in your computer that causes it to crash. Well if what I understand is true, that's pretty much what we're talking about. See, everything is run by computers any more. From our electric grid, to communications, to industry, water companies, banking, police forces and everything in between, they're all run in some way by computers and they're all tied together through the internet. So even if you don't have a computer, it would still affect you. Just imagine sitting down to watch your favorite reality show some night and suddenly the TV goes blank. So you go to the phone to call the cable company, but the phone is dead. Next you can't find your way back to the recliner because the lights went off. You feel your way to the kitchen for the flashlight and decide to pop some popcorn on the gas stove, but the pressure is gone so the burner won't stay lit. Soon it starts to get cold in the house because it's winter and the temperature is down to zero. You decide to get in your car and drive to the police station, but the garage door opener won't work. After you get that figured out, you go to the police station where the Sargent on duty tells you he has no information of any problems because his communications are out. While you're out, you decide to run to the store for some bread and milk, but the store is in complete darkness because the computer that tells the emergency lighting to turn on has crashed. The second store you go to is on fire and the sprinkler system doesn't turn on because there's no water pressure. You notice you're nearly out of gas so you run down to the station for a fillup, but guess what? That's right, the pumps don't work. By the time you get home, there's frost on the kitchen table. We've been attacked through cyberspace. How could all this be happening? Because Congress has been unwilling to act on a CyberSecurity bill. Why? Because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is against it. Why? You wouldn't believe me if I told you.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Just Look At The Map.
Ya know what the greatest shame of the Citizen's United Supreme Court's ruling is? It's not that so many millions of dollars are spent on falsehoods in ads, although it's certainly true that such is the case. But then lies aren't new in political campaigns. It's not even that ultra-wealthy individuals and major corporations are trying to buy elections, although they certainly are. It's not even that our judicial system is becoming tainted by this secret money although by all accounts it is. All of these things are true and it's unfortunate that our Supreme Court Justices couldn't see them coming or, let's hope, it wasn't an intended consequence.
What it means, what the great shame of that infamous decision is, is that we the people have lost control of our electoral process and that our elected chambers have made a near irreversible change from deliberative bodies bent on meeting the needs of our population as they are charged to do by our Constitution and have become the tools and instruments of moneyed interests. In it's attempt to provide the rights of free speech to everyone, the court has effectively eliminated the right of free speech to all but those moneyed interests.
The decision is at least partially to blame for the vitriol in our governing process. In the drive to garner the majority of the mega-funding from these moneyed interests, both parties have learned to do or say anything to get the cash. The promise of anonymous giving, something the average citizen is unable to take advantage of if we wanted to, allows donors to give extremely large donations without being held accountable for those gifts.
Carried to it's obvious conclusion, the United States will become no better than the feudal systems of Europe our founding fathers escaped from. Our founding fathers intentionally drafted what they thought would be terms that would foil attempts to return to those systems of governing.
For some, there's no reason to fear such a possibility. The wealthy need not fear. But for the vast majority, there is. You see, big money doesn't have to convince the whole population. It only has to convince a very small portion of that population to blend with it's base that will always vote the party. And unfortunately it's true that, heard often enough, a lie can become a truth to those who don't pay attention.
What it means, what the great shame of that infamous decision is, is that we the people have lost control of our electoral process and that our elected chambers have made a near irreversible change from deliberative bodies bent on meeting the needs of our population as they are charged to do by our Constitution and have become the tools and instruments of moneyed interests. In it's attempt to provide the rights of free speech to everyone, the court has effectively eliminated the right of free speech to all but those moneyed interests.
The decision is at least partially to blame for the vitriol in our governing process. In the drive to garner the majority of the mega-funding from these moneyed interests, both parties have learned to do or say anything to get the cash. The promise of anonymous giving, something the average citizen is unable to take advantage of if we wanted to, allows donors to give extremely large donations without being held accountable for those gifts.
Carried to it's obvious conclusion, the United States will become no better than the feudal systems of Europe our founding fathers escaped from. Our founding fathers intentionally drafted what they thought would be terms that would foil attempts to return to those systems of governing.
For some, there's no reason to fear such a possibility. The wealthy need not fear. But for the vast majority, there is. You see, big money doesn't have to convince the whole population. It only has to convince a very small portion of that population to blend with it's base that will always vote the party. And unfortunately it's true that, heard often enough, a lie can become a truth to those who don't pay attention.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
The Dreaded Year, 2012
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, men and women of all walks of life, Mr and Mrs America and all the ships at sea. In Snowbeard's continuing coverage of important events, comes news of a new title for this year, 2012. Of all the events and situations our country could become known for this year, such as; the killing of Osama BinLaden and most of the rest of the leadership of AlQaida, an important and vicious election year, a near comical primary season, perhaps the warmest year on record, certainly the warmest summer, the most wildfires, the greatest debt and deficit, a continuing worldwide recession, or the Arab Spring.
None of these measure up to the year of the great American stinkbug invasion. Yes folks, this plague of 'BO' (bug odor) has infested all parts of the country. But Ground Zero seems to be the Mid Atlantic states. Which, not unsurprisingly, includes Washington D. C. Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, past, present and future along with all members of the Supreme court have been frantically searching for the solution to this dreaded situation.
This reporter has it from unnamed sources unwilling to go on record, as stating that nothing is 'off the table' in the drive to defeat this sinister invader. The Supreme Court has decided to take the case in an attempt to clasify these stinkbugs as illegal aliens. The Pentagon has offered to send out drone aircraft against them, China has offered to export a parasitic wasp that is a natural enemy of the stinkbug, but because China is home to the only known colony of these wasps, the price is staggering. One national candidate has suggested that if we let them know how much we dislike their odor, perhaps the stinkbugs will self deport themselves. Another candidate for state wide office claims that they are not legitimate stinkbugs and therefore cannot become pregnant. He claims this fact will doom these insects to extinction.
Congress has suggested we should defund them, further shrinking it's approval rating. In a late breaking development, the President has decided to take up the cause of the stinkbug problem by raising taxes on them, a move Congress is opposed to. The Treasury Secretary has pointed out that our government can support it's citizens or it's stinkbugs, but it cannot support both. The IRS has suggested listing them as deadbeat bugs.
More on this developing story at eleven. This is Snowbeard Speaking, and now back to you, Rush.
None of these measure up to the year of the great American stinkbug invasion. Yes folks, this plague of 'BO' (bug odor) has infested all parts of the country. But Ground Zero seems to be the Mid Atlantic states. Which, not unsurprisingly, includes Washington D. C. Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, past, present and future along with all members of the Supreme court have been frantically searching for the solution to this dreaded situation.
This reporter has it from unnamed sources unwilling to go on record, as stating that nothing is 'off the table' in the drive to defeat this sinister invader. The Supreme Court has decided to take the case in an attempt to clasify these stinkbugs as illegal aliens. The Pentagon has offered to send out drone aircraft against them, China has offered to export a parasitic wasp that is a natural enemy of the stinkbug, but because China is home to the only known colony of these wasps, the price is staggering. One national candidate has suggested that if we let them know how much we dislike their odor, perhaps the stinkbugs will self deport themselves. Another candidate for state wide office claims that they are not legitimate stinkbugs and therefore cannot become pregnant. He claims this fact will doom these insects to extinction.
Congress has suggested we should defund them, further shrinking it's approval rating. In a late breaking development, the President has decided to take up the cause of the stinkbug problem by raising taxes on them, a move Congress is opposed to. The Treasury Secretary has pointed out that our government can support it's citizens or it's stinkbugs, but it cannot support both. The IRS has suggested listing them as deadbeat bugs.
More on this developing story at eleven. This is Snowbeard Speaking, and now back to you, Rush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)