"That's What America was Made On"

One of the celebrity guests on "Extreme Home Makeover" on ABC commented the other evening that the family they were there to support is "what America was made on."

This family seemed great, and they had certainly made tremendous sacrifices to help those in need in their area to feed their families and support themselves.

While those virtues are very honorable, America was not built on charity. It was built on freedom, capitalism, tremendous natural resources, and the intelligent men and women who had the ambition to put one foot in front of the other.

Charity is great. It improves our communities, brings people together, and certainly helps those who need a helping hand. (along with a lot of other people who don't need help)

It's just that somebody had to make the money, goods, or services to donate in the first place, and that is what America was made on.

A Couple of Recent Observations

1. I was backing out of a parking space and saw another car to my left also backing out. Seeing this, I stopped and waited for this car to finish before I completed my "2 point turn." While watching I noticed the car back all the way across into a car on the opposite row. Certainly, I thought, this person would stop to see if they dented or scratched the other car, as it was a very noticable bump.

They did not.

As they drove away, I noticed that it was a woman with and "educator" car tag.

2. While at home one afternoon, I heard some disturbance on my front sidewalk. Upon walking out the front door to inspect, I see three boys (approximately 10-11 yrs old) throwing bricks towards my house from the middle of the street. Upon further investigation (and explaining that this was not, perhaps, a great idea) they explained that they were trying to kill a garden spider in my camelias. After realizing that this was not appropriate, they turned around, firing from the other direction, throwing bricks out into the street. Since that was also near my car, I objected again and suggested that they go on their way.

As they got onto their bikes to ride off, two of the three boys pulled out their cell phones. Considering the large quantity of government housing projects and Section 8 nearby, I'll put the "ass" in assumption and assume that their families are on some sort of government assistance.

Not only were they throwing bricks at my house, but my tax dollars are paying for their cell phone too?

Aliens and the World Cup

It seems that there has been quite a few logical arguments made lately about the existance of extra terrestrials by such notables as Stephen Hawking and The History Channel. Even the Pontiff, himself, has recently acknowledged the possibility of their existance.

So, if they do exist and have a keen interest in human behavior as has been suggested, then they must be observing the World Cup soccer ("futbol") tournament.

In many ways, most Americans are in the same boat, so to speak. We have very little exposure to the "world game" and even less exposure to the cultural intricacies of the other continents as it relates to sport.

As a psuedo alien myself, with very little experience in watching soccer, I can say that the actual extra terrestrials must be less than impressed with our collective human fortitude.

Supposedly, these are the most athletic, most famous, national heroes of their respective countries. The best make salaries that put Alex Rodriguez to shame. While I can admire the tremendous skill and coordination required to excel at the game, it is also a microcosm of American perception of much of the rest of the world.

The best player in the world, Cristiano Ronaldo, (by some accounts) is well known for his "flopping," and that seems to be a common practice among most players. The look of agony on a player's face is quite hilarious when replay shows that the player merely tripped on his own feet or took a "dive."

Then, they roll, suffering, on the ground while clutching their leg, foot, etc.

As a beer drinking southerner, I find myself thinking "get up boy, you ain't hurt."

Even as I write this, I am seeing a player carried off on a stretcher with his hands over his face. Honestly, give me a break... He fell, perhaps while getting kicked in the shin.

(The aliens must know that they have us whenever they want us...)

Then, to top it off, on most of these incidents, the team trainers (who must be really well trained to carry out this job) rush to spray some cold spray on the afflicted body part or apply an old school ice pack which is followed by an offer of a stretcher ride to the sidelines. Most of the time, the stretcher ride is waived off in favor of hopping right back up to play as if nothing was wrong.

If he was really injured that badly to begin with, I've got to get some of that spray. More likely, these fellows don't understand the difference between being injured and being hurt.

By contrast, that type of "injury" happens every play in a game of American football.

What happened to heroes being tough, playing through the pain, and certainly not faking injuries/fouls. (Amazingly, the referees fall for it almost every time)

I guess the closest thing to these "flops" is in the NBA, which has an increasing European influence. I don't know that the NBA carries the same type of passion among fans as soccer or football does either.

Question: I wonder if Phil Jackson limited Kobe Bryant's sexual activites during the finals as many of the latin coaches did in the World Cup to their players?

So, if the Aliens are anything like Americans, (and I suspect that they are...) then they are left feeling quite entertained by the World Cup and fulfilled with a vast aura of superiority.

The Hypocricy of the "World Wide Leader"

As many avid sports fans know, the "World Wide Leader" is ESPN. As a heterosexual male and sports fan, much of my entertainment time is filled with one of the ESPN television networks or ESPN radio.

For years, there have been complaints regarding ESPN's influence on college football rankings, NCAA basketball tournament selections, and even Craig James' undue impact on Mike Leach's career at Texas Tech.

Now, the WWL is branching into politics.

As I watched "The Sports Reporters" on Sunday morning, one of the largest topics of conversation was Arizona's new immigration enforcement laws. Not only did the columnists speak on the potential impact of the law on sports in the state, but they actually gave their interpretation and disapproval of the law.

If I wanted to watch political commentary on Sunday morning, there are a variety of options outside of the ESPN family of networks who, I'm sure, would be more deserving of my viewership.

As if it is not excruciating enough listening to Mike Lupica criticize the performance of another athelete (or anyone with any actual talent), now I have to listen to him berate the state of Arizona for standing up for itself.

One of the reporters (forgive my poor research in getting his name) actually concluded that this was a step back towards the "Jim Crow Laws" and second class citizenship.

Why in the world is this on ESPN?

I think that an effective argument can probably be made on both sides of the issue, and it has been explored in depth on many media outlets. (Which is why I have not discussed it here)

The hypocricy comes into play here: I was listening to "Mike and Mike" this morning on the radio, and they were mocking politicians who made embarrassing or erroneous statements in relation to the world of sports. (Members of Congress investigating the steroids scandal in baseball and mispronouncing players names, the Mayor of Boston saying that Varitek kicked it between the goal posts instead of Vinatierri, etc.)

Mike and Mike correctly concluded that if a politician doesn't know enough about sports to speak intelligently about it, then they should just be more up front about that instead of embarassingly pretending to be a big fan.

The same can be said for "The Sports Reporters" and politics...

I love watching ESPN and will make no empty threats of boycott.

I think that this has just as much to do with our "celebrity worship" society where we look towards our favorite movie star or rapper to figure out how to vote. Everybody feels, not only entitled to an opinion, but to an expert opinion on any subject that needs to be broadcast. (perhaps, me included)

I Disagreed with Neal Boortz?

Yesterday, I disagreed with Neal Boortz, and that was significant enough for me to note.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist vetoed a bill that will hold teachers accountable for their student's performance in the classroom. The bill would make it easier to fire teachers whose students perform below standards on a particular standardized test.

Boortz thought that Crist let the teachers off the hook and was pandering for the vote of the teacher's unions in November. (The pandering part may very well be true...)

While did let the teachers off the hook, so to speak. He also vetoed a piece of bad legislation. Using the war on drugs or most any tax policy as examples, the government must give careful consideration to the consequences of its laws in addition to their general purpose.

Indeed, this bill would make it easier for the state of Florida to circumvent past union negotiations in order to quickly assess and fire bad teachers. (Can you imagine having job tenure at 25-26 years old?) However, it would also prevent good teachers from taking on challenging school districts for fear that their kids would not adequately perform on the tests.

For that reason, Crist was right to veto.

If the bill would have compared teachers within the same school, then I would have been all for it.

Not exactly a big national issue... Just letting Boortz know that I can still think for myself-

I'd Like to Change My Vote

As the new Title IX policy changes come into effect, I would like to change my vote on cheerleading being a sport. It is.

Along with cheerleading, every halftime dancer, majorette, spirit squad, and any other organized flag waving at sporting events should be considered a sport too.

Hope that helps-

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/04/officials_reverse_bush_policy_on_equity_compliance.php

Just Wait...

1. How long before people making fun of Rep. Johnson are labeled as racist, hateful, or any of the other words currently being associated with tea partiers?

2. How long before this becomes a story featured in the national media?

3. How long did the Congressman have to prepare for this line of questioning?

4. How long until I stop thinking this is hilarious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

(Answers: 1. Not long, 2. Never, 3. Not enough, evidently, 4. Never)

The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Wealthier

To paraphrase a number of similar quotes :"The rich have to go to work everyday to stay rich, but the wealthy do not."

(I think it was Chris Rock who even had a bit on how Shaquille O'Neal is 'rich,' but the owner of the team signing his paychecks is 'wealthy.')

The "rich getting richer" drum has been played at nauseum by the media elite, so we will leave that half of the quote alone.

However, based on the second half of the quote, it would seem that the poor are now getting wealthier. Without meaningful contribution to the economy or tax rolls, the millions of subsidized poor in America are actually improving their lifestyle without having to go to work everyday.

All they had to do was vote.

Wealth Allocation

So I'm watching a recent episode of the show "Survivor" featuring all-stars of past seasons...

My attention was caught when two men formed an alliance to make it to the final two. The only logic for their alliance was the fact that both had actually won the show in the past and the $1M prize money. They summized that if either made it to the final vote against another competitor who had not won, then the other castaways would vote for the person who had not won regarless of their performance in the show. The past winners simply didn't 'need' the money.

I'm not sure if it is human nature or liberal dogma to be against "the rich getting richer," but it sure is a microcosm of what is going on in our country.

One Benefit of Communism

North Korea is evidently prosecuting an American for illegally entering the country, and there are many more examples of socialist or semi-socialist countries strictly enforcing their borders to keep outsiders from enjoying the benefits of taxpaying citizens.

Maybe that is one benefit we can get out of this mess.

More Census

Earlier this week, I was startled to see vast numbers of plastic signs stuck in the ground advertising the Census lining the road on my way to work. This is a rural area with a high percentage of minority residents. It seemed that there was one in front of every yard and a couple more at every intersection.

It occured to me that whoever put those signs in the ground is a "community organizer."

I don't think that it is any surpise that more affluent neighborhoods do not have such 'organizers' placing signs in their yard 'reminding' them to fill out their census.

It is also not a real secret that the census has turned into a political power grab, which is used for far more than documenting the population. This is the information used for defining political districts and, importantly, government funding. (makes it a little scary that President Obama wanted the Executive Branch to control the census, huh?)

Having accurate data is an important part of our economy. Businesses use census data in planning future expansion or predicting future demand. In fact, there is an abundance of valid reasons to know how many and where people live.

It just seems a little counterintuitive for the producers of the country to fund, through tax dollars, the hand-holding of the non-producers in order to fill their census, which will be used to allocate the producer's tax dollars back to subsidize the lifestyles and communities of the non-producers. (I always wanted to write a really long run-on sentence without getting red marks on my paper)

Again...

On the front page of yesterday's AJC.com, the main story was about Fulton County schools laying off 1,000 workers. One of the 5 or 6 stories on the side of the front page outlined Fulton County authorities seizing $1.2M worth of Marijuana. The suspected perpetrators are being kept in the Fulton County Jail.

Many of us can figure out the math, but our state politicians cannot even manage to allow alcohol sales on Sundays.

Debt to China = Brilliant (a ramble of thoughts)

As usual, a few critical facts:

$900 Billion - estimate of U.S. Treasury Securities held by China (roughly 7% of U.S. National Debt)

$338 Billion - Goods and Services imported from China to the U.S. in 2008

$71.5 Billion - Goods and Services imported from the U.S. to China in 2008

-$266.3 Billion - U.S. trade deficit with China

$4.9 Trillion - China's Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

$14.2 Trillion - United States GDP


Looking at these numbers, a few things stand out. The idea that China holds all the U.S. debt is not really that accurate. However, it is nearly a trillion dollars, and that is quite significant to anyone but a politician.

With the dollar's decline and hesitation of the U.S. economy, why would China continue to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities in such large quantities? Clearly, it is because of the $266 billion dollar per year trade surplus that China has with the U.S.

For most of the past decade, this trade imbalance has grown at a tremendous rate. The U.S. had a $68 billion trade deficit with China in 1999 and a $266 billion deficit in 2008.

In spite of a few spats of increased tariffs on Chinese or U.S. exports over the past decade, (think about things like tires and chickens) China’s inclusion in the World Trade Organization (WTO) has created a platform for general fair play in terms of trade agreements.

The main complaint against China's trade policy is that they artificially suppress the value of their currency (yuan) in order to create favorable trade conditions for their exports. That policy is really much more hurtful to China's competitors in Asia than to the U.S., because China is primarily a supplier of raw goods which will be sold as finished products by U.S. companies. (iron, steel, timber, plastics)

Thus, in its simplest form, it is not that hard to see the business relationship here. The U.S. allows trade policies which result in a huge trade imbalance with China. In return, China buys U.S. Treasury Securities in large quantities and creates a vote of confidence on the world market for U.S. debt.

Here is where we get hypothetical:

The idea that any of these policies can be confined to the economic world is ridiculous. The United States is the clear front-runner in the world's largest economy race, and China is quickly closing on Japan as the second largest.

Militarily, China's economy will provide a platform for more political influence throughout Asia and around the world. Their military of active, reserve, and para-military totals just over 7 million, just over twice the size of the United States.

Thus, China represents the largest potential military threat to displace the U.S. as the world's only 'superpower.'

Based on the history of global relations, China's military ambition will inevitably clash with the pseudo world empire of the U.S. It could be over such issues as Taiwan, Iran, or simply a dispute over natural resources.

To what scale will this battle be?

In addition to the fear of catastrophe of the world's largest two military powers clashing, (i.e. cold war) perhaps the debt of 1-2 trillion dollars is enough to keep cooler heads to prevail. I would think that declaring war would void the debt. If not the declaration, then the treaty agreement surely would.

In either case, it seems to our advantage to owe our enemy money than the other way around.

My point is that there are many intricacies of this type of foreign policy, and I hope somebody with some sense is steering the ship.

Union is the Answer?

It does not take an advanced degree in economics to understand what role labor unions have played in pulling the prosperity from much of American manufacturing, several states' economies, and various government roles. (teacher's union, etc.)

In the past, the primary role of the union has been to "get more" for its employees in terms of wages, benefits, pension, labor hours, safety, etc. In the wake of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, labor unions were a valued and needed part of the workplace. (Wouldn't my mom be proud that I pulled that reference off the top of my head)

Now, however, many have recognized that unions are no longer needed to protect those original rights and operation procedures for which unions were founded. Due to state and federal government regulations across all industries, we have 'OSHA' guidelines, anti-discrimination, unemployment benefits, etc.

Still, unions play a vital role in many industries to further negotiate many facets of employment and compensation beyond what is legally required. They do so as a group in order to increase leverage against their employer for fear of a strike or 'walkout.'

What if unions could be used for just the opposite scenario?

In an interesting political twist, what if the "National Union of Federal Taxpayers" was created? (NUFT) As in, I've had about 'NUFT' of all these taxes!

If radio talk show hosts are correct, this is the first year where we had less than 50% of the population be a "net tax payer" to the Federal Government. That means that the majority can now vote themselves more and more entitlements without the ability for the minority taxpayer to stop them.

As alluded in earlier posts, I view many of the entitlement programs, essentially, as "ransomes" to be paid to those who cannot or will not work to provide for themselves. Economically speaking, there is a value in having basic food and shelter for everyone. Thus, these should not be considered rights but a valuable alternative to looting or potential chaos stemming from desperation.

As we have also seen, too much of a ransom paid, and there are more and more 'takers'in the system.

Therefore, there is a mathematical way to determine the appropriate amount of handouts or entitlements from the government to deter both chaos and apathy at the same time.

Until the boys in Washington figure that one out on either side of the aisle, I suggest we explore the idea of forming 'NUFT' to negotiate on our behalf.

If teachers can negotiate with the government through unions, then why can't taxpayers? What are they going to do, fire us?

The only difference between this and a regular union is that instead of asking for more from our employer, we are asking for our government to take less from us.

Just as a union should generally understand that a company does have to make some profit, NUFT will understand that the government does need revenue for essential services, military, and an appropriate amount of entitlements. However, get too greedy, and the NUFT kicks in.

Just as the union was designed to protect "the little guy," the little guy is now the American taxpayer.

So, I have no ambition of creating and organizing a union of tens of millions of people. (only 1 organizer I know has the sort of experience to try that sort of sweeping vision) My goal is to offer a comparison of the somwhat helpless feeling many of us now have towards the amount of money we get to keep.

Hell, maybe the Republican Party or the Tea Party movement can use the idea in November to get some bi-partisan support.

Unions have devastated the growth of companies before, maybe it can work for the government too!

The "Death Panel" Finally, a breakthrough idea by the Democrats

Let me first say that I have no interest in endorsing the Democratic led healthcare reform bill or any part thereof. Any time the government starts using words like "fairness," I get nervous.

Merely, I would like to analyze a part of the bill as a real breakthrough for the Democratic party.

Allow me to also provide the disclaimer: Much like our congressmen, I have not had the time to read or the mental capacity to understand the specific language of the bill. Therefore, I am drawing my analysis on what I believe to be the least partisan commentators on the issue and ignoring the "phrase bombs" that are thrown from both sides. In light of that, consider this a hypothetical opinion.

Now that's out of the way...

What a breakthrough!

People, the Democrats are in favor of saving government money, obtained through taxation, in spite of the potential sympathy and humanity involved.

So, a person has a terminal illness and the government is willing to provide "end of life counseling" to decide the best path towards their 'outcome.' This path seems to be designed at reducing treatment costs which can skyrocket in the final weeks of one's life and also reduce the stress on the patient.

Many have become frightened by this prospect, because it can potentially lead to having the government ration care to those in the most severe conditions, essentially writing them off by saying their odds of survival are not worth the cost of care. This situation has been realized in Great Britain and has resulted in many patients seeking care outside the system.

Thus, the flaws of a single payer system...

However, we do not have a single payer system,(yet) and we are still able to purchase health insurance or pay for treatments privately. Thus, as free citizens, our decisions and financial capacity to execute those decisions will determine the quality of our family's healthcare.

Those currently not covered under insurance (anywhere from 8 to 46 Million) are the primary beneficiaries of the new legislation and will then be at the government's mercy to disperse revenue collected by taxation towards their healthcare.

Based on the Constitution, we have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" along with all those rights enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" and subsequent amendments.

None of those rights suggests that the government must provide housing, food, utilities, education, or healthcare to its citizens, as all of these items require the time and resources of others.

The only 'right' that we have which requires a part of someone else's time is the right to a trial by jury.

The government provides these failsafe benefits because we have collectively voted that our country is better, more productive, safe, etc. if we have these lowest common denominators in place.

Just as one is not likely to live in the most finely appointed mansion on Section 8, one should not expect to have an unlimited healthcare budget being paid for with tax dollars.

Basic economics lesson:

1. Healthcare, like housing, food, education, etc. is a scarce resource with a limited number of doctors, nurses, and facilities.

2. Scarce resources have value.

3. Items with value are generally rationed by the ability of a consumer to pay. (Again, houses, cars, etc.)

4. Thus, healthcare is currently rationed by the ability of a consumer to pay either through insurance coverage, private funds, or government subsidy.

So, we have the ability to live in better housing than government projects or Section 8 if we pay for it. We can go out to eat and spend more money on food than food stamps if we pay for it ourselves. We can send our children to private schools for a better education if we pay the tuition.

With this in mind, we should also be able to get preferred healthcare or treatment if we rely on our own insurance and funds to pay.

Again, the proposed bills scare some because of the potential loss of control of their own destiny and care through government rationing of this scarce resource by some other means than one's ability to pay.

If we can put that fear aside and hypothetically assume that our current insurance and payment options will not change, that means that only those who rely on the government for care will be subject to 'value minded treatments' and "end of life counseling."

Anyone have a problem with your tax dollars being distributed as efficiently as possible for someone else's healthcare?

Those are tough decisions that the government has a lot of difficulty in making. "Nobody wants to be the bad guy."

That is what makes this such a breakthrough for the Democrats!

I am sure that many facts of this legislation are left out of my opinion, and perhaps, some others are misrepresented. Still, this is about the concept, and that is something we should examine more closely.

Census Advertising

Would someone please explain to all of us why the 2010 U.S. Census is something that needs constant advertisement on television?

I mean during the Super Bowl for goodness sakes!

Advertising for something that is mandatory seems a little silly to me. (as well as wasting millions of dollars doing so.)

Why don't we start advertising for the IRS to pay your taxes or Social Security? Perhaps throw out some advertisements to drive on the right side of the road or send your kids to school...

Government at its finest!

Self Confidence through the Apathy of Others

Around 1% - Depending on how you calculate, this is the percentage of Americans who are millionaires. (likely not counting the equity of the primary residence)

Around 6% - Percent of individual American workers who make $100k per year or more from their job

Less than .5% - Percent of Americans who make over $400k per year or more from their job

$43,000 - Median income of a full-time worker in the U.S.

(Data compiled from various years in the late 2000's from sources including WSJ and Merrill Lynch)

Just looking at these figures, financial success is not likely and certainly not as immenent as we have lead ourselves to believe as we graduated high school and college. Those of us with even the most modest amount of ambition strive to be a millionaire these days. Besides, a million dollars doesn't get you what it used to!

Particularly in times of economic stress, it can become difficult to envision rising from the ranks of financial mediocrity. However, looking at the numbers, there just isn't much room at the top for stowaways.

Do not despair.

While $400k jobs aren't growing on trees, and becoming a millionaire (without inheritance) will take a few wise moves and some strategic planning, just keep in mind the "competition."

You see, when we get discouraged by these small numbers or percentages, we are competing with the other 98% for the top 2%. That is quite daunting.

The reality is that much of the "other 98%" is no competition at all:

Every time you go to the grocery store and see unreturned shopping carts, all of those people who did not return their cart are not competition.

The millions of 'great unwashed' who live through government handouts... At least they are not competition.

How about all those people at the mall with colored hair, piercings, and clearly visible tattoos? Unless they are in the music industry, they are not competition.

You are not competition if you openly litter.

Unless you are a professional athelete, wearing your pants below your underwear, or having your hat sideways = not competition.

While there are some exceptions, if you need to take a smoke break at work, you are not likely to be competition.

If you regularly purchase the "tall boys" of Icehouse beer that is appropriately 'on ice' at the checkout stand of a convenience store, you will not regularly be competition for the rest of us.

If you ever mistreat your pet, you are not competition.

More than likely, if your trailer hitch has a dangling ball sack, you will not be competition.

If you paid more for your car than your house, you are not competition.

Some of the competition does not even want to be competition.

Sometimes, the non-competition has an almost undefinable quality. However, you know it when you see it.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, you are not competition either.

So, the next time you find yourself feeling discouraged about "getting ahead," take a trip to Wal-Mart or your local mall. It will make you feel better about your odds-

Sports Populism

Before us this past week has been a microcosm of how quickly we can annoint and disjoint public figures, particularly those considered at the top of their field, organization, government, etc.

Peyton Manning was all set to be annointed as the greatest quarterback of all time last Sunday. All he needed was a decent performance and a Colts victory. Peyton, as it turned out, had more than a decent performance, passing for 333 yards despite one or two crucial drops, one touchdown pass with another one dropped, and one lowly interception.

It seems that Peyton Manning is now a "choker" or "all stats and no substance." Our experts can't fathom him being in the discussion for "best all time." One commentator said on the radio, "he is more Dan Marino than Joe Montana."

Perhaps this is a function of our 24 hour news cycle, even for sports. However, don't we have to question this leap to judgement?

Peyton Manning was, once again, the league's most valuable player. He nearly took a team that would likely not have made the playoffs without him to an undefeated Super Bowl win. His head coach, if not for pulling the starters the last two games of the regular season, would have been considered an afterthought. After all, the Colts are Peyton's team.

That being said, the outcomes in football, like politics and others, are not determined by one player even if he is at the top. Peyton Manning was on the field less than half of the plays in this year's Super Bowl. At one point, he was off the field for more than an hour of real time.

So, we can blame Peyton for the loss even though the Saints had better talent. We can blame George W. Bush even though the final years of his presidency were accompanied by a Democratic congress. We can blame the banks even though the government pressured them to offer loans to low income borrowers. We can blame the oil companies even though they don't control the price of oil...

The point is that the easiest to blame or the most interesting to blame is not always the one to blame. Sometimes there is no blame at all-

America like Europe?

So, America is becoming more like Europe everyone says...

I recently saw the front page of a newspaper that had a story about how the city was having to find new ways to cut spending because of reduced revenues from sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Another story on the front page showed the same town's policemen proudly burning about $13 Million of illegal drugs.

The irony caught me.

It also made me question just how close to being like Europe we really are-

"Saved or Created" -A Quick Look at the Numbers

It seems that American politicians have a case of the "illions." As long as a number ends in i-l-l-i-o-n, then they understand that the American public will generally treat them as equals.

In President Obama's state of the union address, he mentioned a plan to save 15 billion dollars per year, which was portrayed as quite significant.

Today, the Obama admisistration has proposed a budget with a $1.55 trillion deficit. $100 billion of which was for a "job creation program."

Thus the $15B is only 1% of the budget deficit and less than 1% of the annual budget.

There are only 300 million American citizens and the labor force is roughly half of that number including the unemployed, around 155 million. (sources are for journalists, so just trust that this is accurate along with everything else I say...)

Our unemployment figures show just over 10% unemployment nationally or around 16 million people. That does not take into account those who are "under-employed" or those who are struggling with their own business.

Pundits of the Democratic party have varying estimates of the number of jobs that have been "saved or created" by the stimulus package. However, most of the figures endorsed by the administration are in the neighborhood of 650,000. Any person with even a rudimentary understanding of economics can understand that some jobs will be "saved or created" by this enormous amount of spending. Still, the math and accountability on this seems suspect.

The advertised cost of the "Stimulus Package" that helped to "save or create" all of these jobs is $789 billion. That number does not take into account the interest expense on these dollars (since we are running a budget deficit) nor does it account for future spending increases if any of the temporary programs in the package are extended or made permanent. (sounds quite likely though...)

However, just using the administration's numbers, that equates to $1.2 million per job "saved or created." ($789,000,000,000.00/650,000)

Even if the average job "saved or created" is done so in perpetuity, and that job 'pays back' $12,000 per year in federal taxes, it will take 100 years to pay back the stimulus amount required to "save or create" that job in the first place. That, again, does not include any interest and assumes these jobs to be $75-80k per year in order to pay $12k in fed taxes. Only Jimmy Carter would see a 100 year loan with no interest as the right thing to do.

So, what is our point... 2 things:

1. These numbers with all the 'Zero's' have consequences. The budget shortfall of $1.55 trillion is about $10,000 per every working American. Add that to our existing 'net' national debt of $8.5 Trillion, and we have over $60,000 of debt for every working American. Unless the government plans to sell assets such as national parks, federal buildings, and technology, it will need to collect this money from the taxpayers in addition to keeping current with interest.

2. These so called "investments" in the American economy or workforce make absolutely no business sense and have only had a marginal impact in relation to unemployment rates. Can you imagine any business spending $1.2M for an annual cash flow of $12,000? The loan to GM was a better deal! This illustrates the need to have more individuals with practical business experience working in government as a Representative, Senator, or the CEO, himself.

I just wonder how many on "the hill" really understand the numbers themselves. I'm afraid I know just how few average citizens 'get it.'

What is Happening to the Middle Class?

The American Middle Class... This is often a hot topic of conversation of politicians on the campaign trail. "Americans are working, harder, longer hours, for less prosperity." "Families now have to work 2, 3, and 4 jobs just to keep up!" "The Rich are getting richer while the Middle Class struggles to survive."

We've all heard these and many other similar examples of campaign rhetoric. Truth be told, many of us have wondered how to keep up in our personal lives as well and felt similar emotions.

The purpose of this blog, however, is not to prey on emotions. There is far too much competition with the experts in D.C.

Here, we shall examine the truth:

Many of us think about the middle class fairy tale as portrayed in the town of Mayberry on The Andy Griffith Show. Andy went to work everyday to support the family's comfortable lifestyle, while Aunt Bea filled the role of homemaker and Opey played the all-American kid.

Why does it seem like we can't live like this today without miring in debt?

A couple of hints:
It is not a conspiricy by the wealthy to keep us under their foot.
It is not even due to the overtaxation by the government. (although that may be a discussion for another day)

IT IS BECAUSE OF ALL THE STUFF!

Our standard of living has become so high that all the things we seem to think are mandatory for our daily survival cannot often be paid from just one salary.

On the Andy Griffith Show, there were no cell phones, no internet, no cable television, no cars for every member of the family, and going out to dinner was a rare occurance. Aunt Bea and Opey did not need a pair of $200 jeans to fit in with their friends, their home was modest, Floyd did not charge $100 for a haircut, a long distance call was a big deal, and they didn't even have a family car other than the police cruiser.

A few rough monthly calculations for a family of 4 with dual income:

TV Cable Bill w/ HD: $100
High Speed Internet: $45
Fax Line: $35
Four Cell Phones w/ internet: $300
Second Car w/ pmt, gas, ins, maint: $1000
Daycare: $1000
Dining out 2x per week per month: $480

Total $2960

I am sure to be missing some items from the list that are more difficult to quantify, but you start to get the picture.

(Walk-in closets were not as common during this time for a reason. People didn't buy as many clothes. Shopping has turned into an acceptible hobby! Many families have more cars than they have drivers. We have storage units to hold the stuff our houses cannot. We live farther from work to be in a bigger house. Hair coloring, face creams, rejuvenating masks, massages, etc. were not exactly common either.)

Also, keep in mind that the extra $2960 per month that we spend today is in after tax dollars. So, you need to make nearly $5000 per month in salary to cover all of these necessities/luxuries.

The reality is that many of our most basic goods and necessities are more affordable than ever. A gallon of milk is just over $2, a dozen eggs can still be purchased for $1, and the price of most food items, in general, have advanced at a far slower rate than national inflation.

No wonder nobody keeps chickens in their backyard today.

Even after realizing all of the numbers involved, how many of us are willing to trade their laptop, iphone, and 50" LCD TV for more time with the family?

Judging by our actions, not many.

So, if we can't blame the rich or the government, maybe we can blame corporations for marketing all of this wonderful stuff or society for making us feel insecure if we don't have the latest and greatest at our disposal.

Ultimately, we need to blame ourselves. This is the life we choose.

So sure, the post-war suburban lifestyle with the blossoming middle class has been idealized for its sense of security and simplicity. We just choose not to remember how simple it really was.

Welfare in South Carolina

I read an interesting article today about the Lt. Governor of South Carolina comparing "welfare users to stray animals." (Click here for link: foxnews.com)

While this type of headline and statement likening those on various types of government subsidy to the stray animals on the Lt. Governor's back porch at Grandma's house is likely to spawn outrage followed by cries of racism, our question is: "What is the reality?"

Both political parties posture about the role of government in subsidizing the needy, less fortunate, disabled, and 'down on their luck.' Democrats, in general, portray the vast majority of citizens on government subsidy as on the verge of starvation, anxiously working towards better opportunities, and just in need of a helping hand to get there. On the other hand, Republicans,in small glimpses, offer a more likely analysis of the situation. To paraphrase, 'helping handouts from the government without consequences are destined to further promote the activity that landed the needy in need to begin with.'

That, however, is not to say that Republicans are fully correct either. The point of this post is not to outline a future plan for the reform of government assistance programs. (welfare, section 8, medicaid, food stamps, and on and on) The purpose is to expose the reality of the situation.

The fact is that both parties see a strong need for the government providing some sort of baseline standard of living for its citizens. Without this, people who cannot or will not provide for themselves through conventional means will fall further into poverty and, more importantly, a state of desparation.

While not feeding stray animals will likely keep them away from your back porch, they will still scower trash cans, trash dumps, and any other means of survival, particularly if they can smell food.

Can you imagine every wealthy person in America having to hire security guards 24 hrs a day? What about a middle class soccer mom driving a bullet proof vehicle to avoid kidnappings with ransoms? What if we had vast shanty town villages on the outskirts of every major city in America as is often seen in parts of Asia, Latin America, and Africa?

Both sides can agree that this is a recipe for disaster and would reduce our ability to enjoy peace and freedom in our everyday lives.

Thus, we all willingly agree to pay a ransom for our safe enjoyment of daily activities to keep the problem at bay. Our streets are relatively clean, not lined with beggars, and very few of us can say they live with realistic fear of random crime against them. We can also hold our heads high, knowing that every American has a chance from birth to death of becoming successful. That certainly can't be said for much of the world.

So, is the system grossly misused? Yes. Is it too easy to be poor in America? Probably so. Are we all frustrated when we see paradoxes like a person talking on their cell phone in the grocery line while paying with food stamps or using their laptop on the front porch of a Section 8 home? Most definitely.

That just means that the system needs a lot of work to become an effective tool to enhance self suffiencey as it was sold to the American public by our elected officials. It does not mean that the system isn't working.