Eat the Rich

Many in the media act as if the rich are evil tyrants who prevent others from prospering or who gained their riches by stealing from the poor.  And many think that the rich should be penalized by paying higher tax rates than the rest of us.  But I wonder, if the rich prospered through hard work instead of ill-gotten gains, why should they pay more than the rest of us.

Recently, Senator Harry Reid said, “we will not consign the middle class to higher tax bills while millionaires and billionaires avoid all the pain.”  But in fact, the President’s proposal is to raise tax rates on individuals making more than $200,000 per year to 36% or families making more than $250,000 per year to 39.6%.  What’s more, the President also wants to raise taxes on dividend income for these two groups.

I learned that some types of small businesses such as S corporations, limited-liability companies, partnerships, and sole proprietorships do not pay corporate income tax.  The taxes on these entities are paid by the shareholders in the form of personal income taxes.  Therefore, a change in the top two personal income tax rates also affects small businesses.  I’ve mentioned in an earlier post that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. 

While $200,000 may seem rich to someone making $30,000 a year, it’s not exactly Bill Gates or Warren Buffett kind of riches. But if these tax increases occur, how much more tax revenue is collected and what is the consequence?

CNBC reports that the raising the tax rates would increase tax revenue by $40 – 45 billion the first year.  That’s a lot of money, but without significant spending cuts, $40 billion doesn’t make a dent in the 2012 budget deficit, estimated by the White House to be $1.33 trillion.  So what are the consequences of raising tax revenue this way?

The House Ways and Means Committee commissioned an independent study by the accounting firm Ernst & Young to look at the long-term effects of changing tax rates.  The Ernst & Young report finds that higher tax rates will result in a smaller economy, fewer jobs, less investment, and lower wages.  More specifically, business output could fall by almost $200 billion; wages could fall by 1.8%, and a resulting loss of roughly 710,000 jobs.

In his fiscal cliff plan, President Obama has proposed another $200 billion in stimulus spending, including extending unemployment insurance.  Raising tax rates that jeopardize the economy and increase the risk of job cuts to raise $40 billion and then spend an additional $200 billion to stimulate the economy doesn’t make sense.

The country is facing a fiscal cliff that will adversely impact nearly every American if Congress doesn’t reach a deal to trim the deficit. As provisions of Obamacare take effect in 2013, employer costs will increase 6.5%, further impacting job growth opportunities.  Do we really want our leaders to further jeopardize the economy in order to tax the rich?

Hearing “tax the rich” being repeated over and over on the news reminds me of the Aerosmith song, “Eat the Rich”.   But once their bones are picked clean, who will provide employment or business opportunities for the country?

Its time our leaders make sensible economic decisions.  Contact your Senator (www.senate.gov) or Congressman (www.house.gov) and tell them what you think.  Better yet, call (202-456-1111) or email (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments) the President and let him know you want solutions, not games. 

To Whom Do You Owe Your Life?

Today's post is another one penned by guest blogger John Galt. I hope this one makes you think and appreciate.

To whom do you owe your life?  I’m not talking about the couple that shared a private moment; I’m taking about the people that made the world that you live in.  Some escaped oppression to seek promise in the New World.  Everyone has a family story of how they got here.  What about the people that risked everything to start again and again when crops or businesses failed.  The inventors and the dreamers.  And remember the soldiers that marched off to war; mere boys to start the march and the men that came home.  And sadly, those that didn’t.  The world you enjoy was shaped by all the little pieces contributed by everyone that came before you.  In a time where so many live in the world of “I”, our world is so much bigger than just you.

When you find yourself frustrated when an old man or woman walks too slow, or repeats a story again and again, find patience in your heart and think about how they may have influenced this world you call home.  My pastor’s story in the Christmas Eve service was about the couple, Joseph and Mary, who were turned away from the inn the night Jesus was born.  Later, he mentioned Hall of Famer Hank Aaron’s story about a full hotel and how he was told that there were no rooms available until someone recognized him.  The clerk told Hank he would have given him a room initially if he had known that he was somebody.  Hank replied that everyone is somebody.  Everyone you meet is somebody.  Collectively, all of those somebodies have made the world that molds your life. 

My dad didn’t look like someone extraordinary, but he was.  Mom thought he hung the moon and since I look like him, I’ll admit he was a very good looking man.  He never put on airs.  He wasn’t one to tell stories about himself or boast of his accomplishments.  Actually, he hardly ever spoke of himself.  But, from very humble beginnings, he put himself through college, earned a Bronze Star in Korea while fighting on the 38^th parallel, educated farmers for 34 years on ways to improve their crops as a soil conservationist, and raised three kids to respect America, honor our word and strive to make this world a better place.

 

He’d give you the shirt off his back, pull you out of a ditch or give you his last dollar.  My dad really was a somebody.  And not just to me and my family.  He saved soldiers’ lives in Korea when he carried the wounded to safety.  As an expert marksman, he taught other soldiers how to shoot.  He saved farmers’ farms by making them productive.  More than once, he pulled a car out of the ditch on a snowy night.   The list is just too long, but you get the idea.  He made a difference in so many lives.  You wouldn’t know it to meet him and he wouldn’t take credit for any of it.  It was just the right thing to do.

My dad represents everything good about this country.  He quietly marched through his life, silently performing good deeds along his journey.  I see him every time I see the US flag fly.  He wasn’t just somebody, he was a hero; he made this world a better place.  So, if you find yourself in an “all about me” moment, ask yourself if your actions will make you anyone’s hero?  And before you push your way past the old man struggling with his burden, remember that he is somebody.  Maybe just the somebody that made the life you enjoy possible.

Debt Limit

The Secretary of the Treasury sent a letter to Congress the day after Christmas stating that the US government would reach its debt ceiling limit of $16.394 trillion on December 31^st.  If the debt limit is reached, the Treasury Department must, according to the letter, take extraordinary measures to avoid exceeding the limit.  An appendix to the letter outlines the four measures to be taken. 

So, what does that all mean?  If the debt limit is increased or Congress reduces the amount of debt held by the US Government before the measures expire (approximately two months according to the letter), nothing happens.  If neither of these happens and the measures expire, then the federal government would either have to drastically reduce spending or fail to pay interest and/or principle on US Treasury securities.  One choice creates severe economic impacts in the US, the other impacts world financial markets; neither are attractive consequences.

So why doesn’t Congress simply raise the debt ceiling or get rid of it altogether so this issue doesn’t reoccur?  The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 established a limit on the amount of debt held by the US Government.  In the past, it’s been fairly routine for Congress to increase the debt limit.  It is a misconception to think the debt ceiling is an arbitrary limit without consequences. 

The letter from the Treasury Secretary states that the US public debt is increasing by $100 billion per month, on average and the Congressional Budget Office predicts that, if the government continues to maintain current spending policies,  within 20 years the debt could approach 200% of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) (http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-05-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook_2.pdf). Currently the debt is approaching 100% of the GDP and at least some in Congress have attempted to reign in the government’s spending before the US has a financial meltdown similar to what occurred in Greece this summer.  Simply, if the government spends as much or more than the country makes, every year brings a greater risk of financial collapse.  This collapse will have real consequences in the lives of every American.

Simply extending the credit limit, or debt ceiling, isn’t the solution.  When an individual applies for a loan, the bank asks what you plan to do with the money and assesses your financial stability.  They determine if lending you money is a financial risk.  If your existing assets and liabilities are too great, you are a poor candidate to meet your obligation to pay them back. The same is true for businesses applying for a loan.  The lender will want to see a business plan, detailing financial plans plus existing assets and liabilities.  Without a viable business plan or if the liabilities are too great, the bank won’t extend the credit.

Some might say the bank is being unfair in denying a loan to any and all, but it’s simply good business practice on their part.  If I’ve already shown a penchant for running up debt, what assures them I’ll meet by obligations and repay my debt to them?

If the US Government were a business, I certainly would not loan it money.  It has no approved budget and no plan in place to reign in long term spending or address long term obligations such as Social Security or Medicare.  Frankly, due to a lack of leadership, it looks like a mismanaged company headed for bankruptcy.  Is that the business model we want for our country?  This is your tax dollars and federal fees they are mismanaging.  When programs that matter to you are cut because the government has decided there aren’t sufficient funds, it is due to the mismanagement of the money you send to the federal government.  What would happen to you if you didn’t pay your bills and kept spending money you don’t have?  You can be sure that at some point, you would be called on your debt with dire consequences, such as losing your home, seizing your possessions, or garnishing your wages.  Well, the time has come to call the government on its debt.  Like the rest of us, they need a financial plan that outlines a viable spending plan for our money and how they will meet their financial obligations.

Contact your Senator (www.senate.gov) or Congressman (www.house.gov) and tell them what you think about the debt ceiling.  Even better, call (202-456-1111) or email (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments) the President and let him know you want solutions and reductions, not more of the status quo.

No Win

The Republican Party seems to be in a no-win situation with this whole fiscal cliff fiasco.  A Quinnipiac poll taken two weeks ago indicated that voters would blame Republicans for failure to avert the fiscal cliff disaster by a margin of 54-27.  It’s no wonder, given the fact the media seems to focus primarily on Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on the “rich” but extend tax cuts, currently set to expire at the end of the year, for others versus the Republicans opposition to raising tax rates.  This focus seems to paint the Republicans as bad guys, willing to sacrifice the country in order to protect their rich friends. But is that really what’s going on?

I wondered about the differences between Obama’s proposal and the Republican proposal.  It appears the Republicans are proposing deeper spending cuts than the President and increasing tax revenue through an overhaul of the tax code; this overhaul includes lower tax rates plus an extension of the expiring tax cuts.  The President is proposing spending cuts, although less than the Republicans, but also proposing new spending of $200 billion in new economic "stimulus" initiatives, including payroll tax cuts, continued write-offs of business equipment purchases, extended unemployment benefits, help for borrowers "under water" on their mortgages, and new spending on infrastructure. In addition, the President wants the ability to increase the government’s debt limit without approval from Congress.

Although there are differences, it seems that both sides, if willing to compromise should be able to reach a solution. But the actions of some in Washington suggest scoring political points is more important to them than solving the country’s problems.  On December 5th, Mitch McConnell (R- Kentucky), took to the floor of the Senate and suggested an immediate vote on the plan that Obama offered up to Congress on November 29th.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), immediately objected and shut down any chance to vote on the plan, calling it a Republican “stunt.” 

Both the President and the Majority Leader are from the same party, so why wouldn’t Senator Reid allow a vote?  Does Senator Reid not agree with the President’s plan?  Or is the Senator just playing politics?

I suspect the good Senator is playing politics.  Earlier this month, he stated "We are willing to compromise, but we also will not consign the middle class to higher tax bills while millionaires and billionaires avoid all the pain."  On December 20th, Senator Reid, explained the Senate’s inaction on Republican’s “Plan B” proposal by saying, "We are not going to do anything." He later added, "We are not taking up anything they are working on over there."  Considering that Plan B is similar to an earlier Democratic proposal, why wouldn't Reid want to take it under consideration, especially if it helps the country avoid the cliff.

In the last three years, the Senate, under Reid’s leadership, has not passed a federal budget, so I am not surprised at his “do-nothing” comments.  And, according to a Wall Street Journal article titled, “How ‘Cliff’ Talks Hit the Wall,” the President is prepared to use his upcoming inaugural speech and State of the Union address to blame Republicans if a deal isn’t reached. 

None of that sounds like people who are trying to avert an economic disaster.  It sounds like people who don’t care what happens to the American public so long as they can blame someone else. It’s time for members of Congress and the President to stop the games and do something to keep the country from going over the cliff. Not just short term solutions, but real, meaningful, long-term solutions that stabilize the economy and fully fund the government’s obligations. 

Tell our Congressional leaders it’s time for solutions.  Contact your Senator (www.senate.gov) or Congressman (www.house.gov) and tell them what you think.  Better yet, call (202-456-1111) or email (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments) the President and let him know you want solutions, not games.  Failing to avert the cliff will cost us all.

Merry Christmas!

On Christmas Eve, 1968, three men circled the Moon for the first time.  In 1968, the world seemed to be coming apart at the seams, so the crew wanted to send a message of hope and inspiration back to the people on Earth.  While a grainy image of the lunar landscape played on TVs around the world, Bill Anders, Jim Lovell, and Frank Borman read the first ten verses from the Book of Genesis.  The impact of the Christmas Eve message and the successful flight was summed up in telegram sent by a stranger to Frank Borman.  It said, “Thank you Apollo 8. You saved 1968.”

Borman felt that he needed to make some sort of statement in his TV broadcast as the Apollo 8 crew circled the Moon, the first humans to ever do so.  In the midst of all his training, he struggled with choosing the words he would say from lunar orbit.  A friend suggested that the words were already written; Borman, simply read from the Bible.

I’d hoped to write a really great post to wish everyone a Merry Christmas.  I wrestled with how best to express what I really wanted to say, but I could not find the right words.  Like Borman’s friend, I realized the words were already written. So today, I will rely on the words of a Greek physician who recorded the events of nearly 2,000 years ago. 

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Merry Christmas and God Bless us all!

Good Grief!

Mr. Webster defines Christmas as “the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus: celebrated on December 25 and now generally observed as a legal holiday and an occasion for exchanging gifts.”  Evidently a number of people in the United States of the Offended (aka the United States of America) aren’t aware that Christmas is a Christian holiday and are offended that some would insert religion into Christmas.

The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers (ASF) fought against plans to send elementary school children to see a production of “A Charlie Brown Christmas” at a local church.  One of the school’s teachers is part of the production.  The school principle sent home a letter to parents giving them an opportunity to opt out of sending their child to the production.  ASF stated that their beef had nothing to do with the cartoon, but with the “violation” of church and state.  An ASF vice president stated, “We’re not saying anything bad about Charlie Brown. The problem is that it’s got religious content and it’s being performed in a religious venue and that doesn’t just blur the line between church and state, it over steps it entirely.”  Maybe the clear choices to attend or not to attend didn’t give the supporters of ASF the freedom of choice they desired.

A group of parents in Missoula, Montana, are upset that the song selection for their school’s holiday program is “unfair, unconstitutional, and is a form of bullying.” An anonymous letter sent to the Missoula County Public Schools district superintendent stated, “We have no problem with it being called a Christmas concert, it’s just the fact the material should be secular.”  The letter went on to state that, “several of the students were uncomfortable.”  It is always interesting to me how an anonymous collective can state factually how others felt in a situation without a tinge of hearsay.  To fit the description offered by the parents, I’d wonder if the students were restrained or forced to cower for their part in the program.    

Good grief! Are the opportunities to attend Christmas concerts or to participate in Christmas plays unconstitutional or a form of bullying?  Amendment One to the US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  It says nothing about separation of church and state and it says nothing about freedom from religion.  As always, these individuals have the freedom not to participate.

In 1789, while debating the proposed Bill of Rights in the US House of Representatives, James Madison said, he “apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”  This is a notable interpretation, since Mr. Madison drafted the original Bill of Rights.

I’ll save the arguments about separation of church and state for another post. But, I believe that the framers of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights realized that, although religion plays a big role in the US both then and now, in order to be fair to all it was best to prevent government from establishing an national religion or force citizens to worship God in any way but one of their own choosing.  I also believe that, by choosing the language as it exists in the Bill of Rights, they were striving for religious tolerance.

I’ll offer up the argument that the people in Arkansas and Montana are intolerant of Christianity.  But that’s not the point I want to make.  My point is the US Constitution and its amendments were put into place, among other reasons, to protect our rights and freedoms as citizens; nowhere are we guaranteed the freedom from offense.   The birth of Jesus Christ is why the Christians celebrate Christmas.  For the rest, if you choose to celebrate December 25 like any other day of the year we won’t be offended.

Christians have been celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25^th since at least the 4^th century.  Whether people like it or not, it is a Christian holiday. If that offends you, suck it up, rub some dirt on it, and get over it. And, to everyone, have a Merry Christmas.

Connecticut Tragedy

I am still in disbelief over the tragedy in the Connecticut elementary school last week.  I can’t fathom the terror the children and adults must have felt while the gunman prowled the halls.  I don’t know how a parent can survive the heartache and grief of losing a child, especially one as young as those killed at the school.  I do know that this is nothing short of a tragedy, but at the same time I am tremendously thankful for those adults who put themselves in harm’s way to protect the children.  Like all who go in harm’s way to protect human life, they are true heroes and I thank God for them.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, there is a lot of discussion in the media about why it occurred and how it could have been avoided.  As expected, many are focusing on banning guns and gun control.

There are lots of opinions and discussions posted on the web about tighter gun control laws.  Some have blamed the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the tragedy because of the NRA’s advocacy for gun ownership.   A few blogs have even advocated killing NRA members because of the organization’s position on gun control laws.   Do they hear themselves?  They are making threats and advocating violence in these outbursts against a group of people that were not involved. 

A natural response for us is to look at our own lives and wonder if this violence could have happened to us.  Many people want some action taken so they will feel better about their safety.  But that safety is merely an illusion.  When evil people, such as the shooter in Connecticut or the shooter at the mall outside Portland, are determined to cause harm, laws will do little to stop them.  According to an article in the Denver Post, Connecticut has some of the most stringent laws in the US.  The Connecticut shooter stole legally-purchased guns, transported them, and took them into a school, all violations of current Connecticut gun laws.  But do we really think more laws would have stopped him?

Drunk driving is unlawful in every state, yet many still die in drunken driving accidents.  Murder is illegal yet the FBI reported almost 14,000 murders in 2009.  Many drugs are illegal, yet the US Department of Justice’s National Drug Intelligence Center estimates the cost of drug use at $174 billion annually.  Furthermore, the US Drug Enforcement Agency estimates that each year 7 million pounds of marijuana enters the US across the Arizona/Mexico border alone.

Not only do laws not stop people from doing bad things, a total gun ban will not stop bad people from having guns.  If we can’t stop 7 million or more pounds of marijuana from crossing the border, how do we stop the smuggling of weapons, especially if people are willing to pay for them?

Even if guns are not available, a person determined to do harm will find some way to inflict harm.  The same Denver Post issue previously mentioned, also ran a news story concerning four people burned in an attack when the culprits sprayed the victims with a flammable liquid and then set them on fire. 

The solution to ending these tragedies is not more laws, but to educate the population to read the warning signals, to create ways to prevent and treat mental illness, and establish a way to communicate the threat and stop these people before they kill.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all of those affected by the shooting tragedies.

Earn It

My little brother is a non-commissioned officer in the US Army.  I am very proud of him and his service to our country.  While he was deployed to Iraq, I searched on the internet to find a gift, a hat, a cool t-shirt, something that I could send to him to let him know his service is appreciated.  During my search, I stumbled across Rangerup.com, a small company that makes “shirts for the military and the patriotic Americans who love the men and women of the Armed Forces. The guys that own this company either were or are still in the military.”

I went to their website recently and found a t-shirt (http://www.rangerup.com/earnit.html) with, “Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything” printed on the front. On the back is printed, ‘Earn it.”  There is a commentary on the same webpage about entitlement and the spread of “entitlement disease”.

The commentary states:

“The occupy movement is a group of people who believe they deserve more - more opportunity, more money, more benefits, more whatever. They believe that life isn't fair.

They are right. It never will be and it never has been.”

The writer goes on to state several methods to achieve what you want out of life. One is, obviously, to work hard. Another is to start a business.  He further writes, “Some people who work harder than you do will never achieve your level of success and some people that work markedly less hard will blow you out of the water. And that will always be true because life isn't fair, people have different skill-sets, and luck plays a huge role in life.” 

He’s absolutely right.  Eddie Van Halen has probably made a bazillion dollars playing guitar.  I’ve never made a cent and probably never will.  Is that fair?  It would be nice to get paid that kind of money, but the fact of the matter is I do not have the same talent nor have I practiced as much as he has.  So to think it’s unfair is an exercise in lunacy.

The writer begins his final paragraph by saying, “But what I can tell you is that you have to take responsibility for your life or you will become, and remain, a loser. Every success and every failure has to be yours.”

We hear a lot about fairness and what is or is not fair. There are a lot of people demanding unwarranted or unearned advantages or benefits.  And it’s a lot easier to blame someone or something instead of accepting responsibility.    You have talents. How you apply your talents and how much effort you put into them are your choice.  Maybe they aren't in the areas that bring wealth and fame, but they lay a foundation for success.  Life is and never will be fair.  But, it is your life and how you spend it is your choice.

Shrug?

Note: Since I've started blogging, I've been approached by friends and co-workers inquiring about guest blogging. Today's post is the first guest blog and is penned by John Galt. I hope you find this post as thought provoking as I did.

To shrug or not to shrug, that is the question.  Whether it is nobler of the mind to persevere under the looming burdens of out-of-control government spending or to shrug, quit trying and exit the workforce.  Frustration? Heck yes!  More so because I have no direct control over the decisions, yet I suffer the outcome.  If we tumble over the fiscal cliff, my household will lose over $200 a week directly.  Under the threat of Obama-care, my medical costs skyrocketed by hundreds of dollars a month years ago.  My federal salary has been frozen for years now with no hope of a cost-of-living increase, yet the cost of gas and essentials continue to soar. 

So, that only affects me, right?  Because money is tight, I eat out less and almost never go out.  I don’t buy more than necessary and I scrutinize every purchase.  I shop with coupons and for generic brands.  I am putting less into the economy because I have less to spend and I am uncertain that the money flow will improve. So I am holding onto my money.  There are a lot of small businesses in the area that have closed because people like me are staying home, buying less and hunkering down while awaiting the fallout of the inactivity of Congress and the pigheadedness of the President.  Even the larger chains are closing, consolidating, changing their marketing schemes or whatever it takes to stay in business.  Companies change to stay in business;  I’ve changed my practices to stay within my means. 

Yet, the government wants to continue to spend and spend and spend without making changes.  Fiscal responsibility--do they understand the term?  If Congress men and women don’t pay their personal bills, don’t they endure the same penalties that we do?  Must not, or they would realize that we no longer own our country because the debt we accumulate is held by other countries.  If the mortgage company owns your house until you pay off your mortgage, don’t these other countries that hold our debt own us until we pay off our debt?  But the debt continues to climb out of control.  At some point, the bill is due and we will not be able to pay.  Where are we then?

I can shrug, quit paying my bills and put my hand out for entitlements from the government.  My kids would probably qualify for money for college, they could get free lunches in school, and I could get unemployment, housing, food stamps and benefits of all of the government entitlement programs.

To do that, I’d have to first shrug off my pride, my self-respect and throw away my potential earning power.  I’m not implying that all other people are taking advantage of the programs, but because I have the potential to do more, I feel that I and others like me are being punished.  It is not that I live lavishly; it is that I live within my means because that is what my parents taught me to do.  Don’t spend money you don’t have.  Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and go on.  Honor your commitments.

My parents promised that if I work hard I will be rewarded.  Well, maybe they weren’t prepared for a President with a socialistic lean, bipartisan antagonism and unrealistic expectations to undermine that promise.  At this point, if I strive to work harder for some gain, I won’t reap any of the benefits because they will be taken away either directly by the government or through the mess the government has made of our economy.  So, while I think about shrugging, I’ll eat my delicious lunch of Kraft macaroni and cheese while I sit at my desk and hope no one slips a pink slip under the door today.

The Moral of the Story

Chances are you’ve never heard of Lindsey Stone.  Until a few days ago, I’d never heard of her.  But her immoral story is one with a moral.

Lindsey had her picture taken while making a rude finger gesture and pretending to shout beside an Arlington National Cemetery sign that says “Silence and Respect”.  She then posted the photo on her Facebook page.  I don’t think the result was quite what she expected.

It turns out the response to her post was very negative.  So much so that she responded by posting on Facebook "Whoa whoa whoa... wait. This is just us, being the d*****bags that we are, challenging authority in general. Much like the pic posted the night before, of me smoking right next to a no smoking sign. OBVIOUSLY we meant NO disrespect to people that serve or have served our country."

Ms. Stone might have thought she was challenging authority, but in reality she was acting like an inconsiderate jerk.  Apparently what she failed to understand is that such signs are posted because many people, either lacking common courtesy, common sense, common decency, or all three need a reminder to be considerate of others.  Her so-called rebellion against authority was nothing more than an act of childish and inconsiderate behavior by a 30-year-old adult who should have known better.

Ms. Stone and her supervisor were on business travel when the photo was taken.   Someone posted a Facebook page called “Fire Lindsey Stone” and over 30,000 joined the group.  Her employer, a Cape Cod-based nonprofit organization that assists adults with learning disabilities, was inundated with angry emails and phone calls, ultimately firing Ms. Stone and her supervisor, who snapped the picture.

I’ve seen several web posts about free speech and whether or not Ms. Stone should suffer for a bad joke on her personal Facebook page.  Some posts favored her firing and others did not.

While Congress and the states cannot pass laws that abridge the freedom of speech, this does not extend to employers.  Employees whose speech and behavior embarrass or reflect poorly on employers can be fired.  While Ms. Stone probably thought her behavior harmless, she was, at the time, a living, breathing representative of her employer.  Like it or not, her behavior reflected poorly on her company, and they terminated her.

Did her behavior warrant firing? Fortunately, I didn’t have to make that decision.  But the moral of the story is that our behavior, especially stupid, rude, and inconsiderate behavior can and often has unintended consequences.  Before engaging in such behavior, think about the possible consequences. And, don’t advertise your moral failings by posting the photos on social media sites for the world to see.  

Thank You

Tony finally beat the cancer he’d been fighting for seven years.  A man of incredible faith, Tony passed away on November 30^th and now resides in the Kingdom of Heaven.  Tony leaves behind a wife, two children, and a huge hole in the world.

I first met Tony at a time when I had slipped away from church and my faith.  Tony inspired me to renew my faith and, as a result, I became active in church again.  In all the years I knew Tony, I don’t think I ever saw him without a smile on his face.  If he can smile while battling cancer, then it seems silly for me to be angry over a bad day at work or some other inconvenience.  His example inspired me to be a better person.

I have regrets.  I regret that I didn't spend more time with Tony and I regret that I didn't thank him for being an inspiration and role model.  I truly believe God brings people such as Tony into our lives for a reason, providing us with opportunities to grow as Christians and as human beings. I missed my chance to thank Tony, but I’ll try to let his family know what he meant to me.

If you look around, there’s probably somebody in your life like Tony, serving as a role model, an inspiration, or friend.  Don’t pass up a chance to tell them what they mean to you and to thank them and thank God for them.  Gifts like these people are too precious to take for granted.

Hot Button

More than three weeks after the election, the conservative “talking heads” are still performing a postmortem on Romney’s loss.  Was there something wrong with the message or the messenger? There is a lot of talk about what the candidates did wrong, but I believe the real problem is something different. 

I think the problem is the hot-button vote on issues touted in the media.  These are the low-information voters who vote based on a candidate’s stance on politicized social issues, such as same-sex marriage or abortion rights.,.  What’s sad is the voters are casting their vote for a candidate based on the candidate’s opinion on an issue when the President has little to no power or authority to affect changes on these hot-button issues.  Do, these voters know that?

Title 1 of the US Code of Federal Regulations defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  That’s because a legislative act approved by Congress became part of the US Federal Code of Regulations.  The President can’t change that, only Congress can. More importantly, the issue belongs at the state level, not the federal level.  Why? Because states issue marriage licenses, there is no federal marriage license.  So why are we electing a President based on this issue?

The landmark Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe vs. Wade struck down many state laws regulating or restricting abortion by arguing that the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.  Whether you agree or disagree, the US Supreme Court has stated that abortion rights are protected by the US Constitution. To change that requires a change in the US Constitution.  Article V of the US Constitution defines the amendment process.  The President doesn’t have a part in amending the US Constitution, so why is this an issue during a presidential election?

So, when considering how to cast your vote for president, what power and authority does the President have?  He is responsible for foreign policy and national security. He is responsible for domestic policy, such as energy and law enforcement. And he is constitutionally obligated to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The President is head of the executive branch of the government.  Congress has delegated to the executive branch through the Administrative Procedure Act and other legislative acts the power to establish federal regulations.  These regulations impact the economy, preventing employers from hiring or expanding their businesses (http://active-thinker.blogspot.com/2012/09/get-out-of-way.html).  Given the sorry state of the economy, wouldn’t you think this would be an Election Day issue?

When several states began passing laws to control illegal immigration, the US Justice Department sued the states. If the states are concerned about illegal immigration, shouldn’t the President do something to secure our borders instead of suing the states?  The President has chosen not to enforce immigration laws for illegal immigrants meeting certain criteria, in spite of the fact that he is legally obligated to do so. How can he legally do that?

The President is, nominally, the leader of his political party.  President Obama’s party has controlled the Senate throughout his term and controlled the House during his first two years in office.  The Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is an unpopular piece of legislation that a majority of the country wants repealed.  The Senate, although legally obligated to do so, has not passed a budget resolution in over three years, preventing Congress from passing a Federal budget during the same timeframe. 

Due to the debt ceiling crisis, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011. This act will trigger across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending starting January 2^nd, if Congress does not produce legislation to reduce the Federal deficit before the end of the year.  In addition to the automatic cuts (sequestration), provisions of the ACA go into effect and tax cut legislation expires at the beginning of 2013.  The Congressional Budget Office predicts this will lead to another recession and increase in unemployment.

Listening to the voter’s exit comments on how they voted, it was apparent that too many people voted based on hot-button issues and not the issues that the President has the responsibility to address..  We can do something, before we suffer another four years of fiscal irresponsibility and adversarial relationship with the States and with Republican leaders in Congress. Go to www.whitehouse.gov and tell the president what you think. Contact your Congressman or Senators and let them know what you think and how you want them to vote.  Study the Constitution so you are informed on the roles and responsibilities of the office.  Then, talk to your kids and your friends so they also know where the responsibilities lie when they decide on a candidate.  Make your vote count.

Status Quo

In the middle of the National Election hangover, the conservative pundits are trying to figure out what happened on Election Day.  With high unemployment, trillions of dollars in deficit and a gridlock in Congress, I expected changes that would put this country back on track.  Some pundits say Romney failed to connect with voters.  Others say that the voter demographics changed and the Republicans failed to respond.  A few say the Democratic grassroots campaign was more effective than the Republicans’ campaign.  There are those who say the negative ad campaign undertaken by the President and Romney’s failure to respond hurt Romney.  I’m not a political consultant, but I noticed two things that worked against Romney and the Republicans, in general.

First thing at work against Romney was the voter’s love of the status quo.  The second is hot-button/low-information voters.  I’ll leave the second for a future post, but now I want to talk about voters and their love of status quo.  If it isn’t love, then it is comfort in the familiar or fear of change that propagates the status quo.

According to a Gallup® poll released in August, the approval rating of Congress reached a high of 24% in May 2011 and remained below 20%.  In August, when the time the poll was released, Congress’ approval rating was a mere 10%.  Surely, with a rating that bad, one would think that voters would have “voted the bums out” in hopes of something better.

But that didn’t happen.  Thirty three Senate seats were on the ballot this year.  Ten of the 33 incumbents retired and one incumbent lost in the primaries.  Of the 22 incumbents on the ballot, 21 were re-elected.  In the House, all 435 seats were up for re-election.  Due to redistricting or retirements, 412 incumbents were up for re-election. Thirteen incumbents were defeated in the primaries and 26 were defeated in the general election, meaning 373 Congressmen were re-elected to Congress. 

Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  With an approval rating of 10%, we sent more than 90% of Congress back to Washington.  What do we expect different when we re-elect the same group?  Doesn’t that qualify as insane?  

The status quo is not a good one, the country is not prospering.  Let’s try something different.  Be aware of what’s going on in Washington.  Go to http://www.house.gov/ or http://www.senate.gov/ to find out about pending legislation and hearings.  Contact your Congressman or Senators and let them know what you think and how you want them to vote.  We put them in office, let’s make them work for us.

Black Friday

President Lincoln issued a proclamation declaring November 26, 1863, “as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”  An annual holiday since then, Thanksgiving has traditionally been a day for family and friends to gather and give thanks for material and spiritual blessings.

In the last few years, however, Thanksgiving has been overshadowed by the rampant consumerism of Black Friday.  The beginning of the Christmas shopping season, the day after Thanksgiving is one of the busiest shopping days of the year.  Retailers advertise special sale prices and other incentives to bring shoppers into their stores.  Shoppers, in an effort to find the bargain price or the hard-to-find-gift, flood the stores.

Long lines of anxious shoppers form outside the stores days in advance, waiting for the retailers to open their doors on Black Friday.  Stories abound of violent shoppers assaulting and pepper-spraying other shoppers or injuring store workers and shoppers in their haste to get at the bargains.  In 2008, a Walmart employee was trampled to death and shoppers refused to stop their shopping and allow employees and rescue workers to render aid.  Pretty pathetic behavior considering Christmas is supposed to be season of giving.

This year, retailers such as Target and Walmart opened on Thanksgiving night.  Not a surprise, considering retailers are in the business of meeting shoppers’ demands.  However, news stories about shoppers lining up on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving caught my attention.

According to the news, people began lining up on Wednesday at various Best Buy locations in order to be the first to take advantage of the sale prices.  Are the sales prices really that great and are the items advertised the things we really want?  Is it anything we need?  Have we become so materialistic that we will skip time to share thanks with family and friends just to save a few dollars?  When did we lose sight of the purpose and importance of Thanksgiving and Christmas?  Is your time really worth $300 off a 50-inch television?  Most of the people in line appeared to be well-dressed, over-30 adults.  After reviewing prices of many of the Black Friday deals, the Black Friday “deals” were the prices offered in September. 

I understand that folks want to find a bargain.  As consumers, we need to make smart purchases, not fall into the media frenzy that pulls shoppers into the store with promises of ultra-low prices, but often result in impulse buys.  So, think through these questions before Black Friday 2013:  Do you need it, can you afford it, and with a bit more planning, could you have gotten it at a better price with some planning?  More importantly, we should also remember the meaning of Christmas in the midst of the shopping frenzy.  Christ was betrayed for the price of 30 pieces of silver.  Let’s not betray him again for a discounted television and BOGO (buy-one-get-one) DVDs.

47%

I recently overheard a couple of 20-somethings on the patio at an open-air mall talk about how they will vote in the upcoming election.  The insipid arguments they made to justify their choice made me cringe.  They talked about universal health care as a “good idea” and how “tax cuts for the rich” would widen the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”  They also talked about the Republican plan to “wipe out Medicare and Social Security “and how electing Romney would be “bad for the economy.”

As I listened to their conversation, the main theme was they want the government to do even more for people. The more I thought about what I heard, the more I thought about Romney’s recent “47%” commentary.

During a private fundraiser held in May, Romney said “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

After the videotape became public, Romney stood by his comments while admitting that his thoughts were “not elegantly” stated.  I agree it may be inelegant, but I think his point is fair.

An April 2012 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/09/20/where-the-public-stands-on-government-assistance-taxes-and-the-presidential-candidates/) indicates that while most Americans (71%) believe that poor people have become too dependent on government programs, a majority (59%) believe  it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves. Fifty nine percent of Americans also believe the government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep.

Frankly, that disturbs me.  The Preamble outlines the purpose of the U. S. Constitution. It says “promote the general welfare,” but nothing about providing food and shelter.  As a matter of fact, nowhere in the U. S. Constitution does it say that the federal government will provide food, shelter, or any of the other basic necessities to the American public.  And it says that for a good reason; it is not the responsibility of the U. S. government to provide food, clothing, or shelter to the American citizens.  It is the responsibility of the American citizens to secure such things for themselves and their families.

I want everyone to have enough food and proper shelter.  I sure don’t want people to starve or live on the streets.  But with a national debt exceeding $16,000,000,000,000 and likely to go higher, the government cannot afford to assume responsibility for the personal welfare of each and every citizen.  The risk of an economic meltdown, such as the recent European debt crisis, grows as the debt grows.  So, whose responsibility is it to feed and shelter U.S. citizens?  I work so I can provide for my family.  Isn't that a reasonable expectation?  The U.S. Constitution grants us certain rights and protections, but it doesn't promise food and shelter.    

What happened to the American spirit that drives us to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps and make a life for ourselves and our families?  The government should not assume responsibility, especially for those who choose not take responsibility for their own welfare.  The government should eliminate barriers to fulfilling the American dream, yet even those are not guaranteed.  In the same speech, Romney said, “My job is not to worry about those people.  I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."  He’s absolutely right.  He won’t convince them.  This November, we have a choice between an incumbent with a track record of federal government expansion and entitlements that are likely to drive us over the fiscal cliff or a candidate that has plans for reducing the size of and dependence on the federal government.  If we don’t make a change, we may all be on the street in four years.

Get Out of the Way

A recent Gallup® poll found that Americans believe the top three most important problems facing the country are unemployment, the economy, and the federal debt.  I agree.  Unemployment has remained above 8% for 42 consecutive months; the federal debt is more than $16 trillion.  As Election Day rapidly approaches, the candidates are spending a considerable amount of time talking about how to fix the economy and stimulate job growth.

I know that a President cannot fix the economy or create jobs.  But a President, along with Congress, can create and implement policies that promote economic growth, which in turn, stimulate employment.  They can also create policies and regulations that hinder growth.

For an indicator of what U.S businesses think of the candidates and their economic policies, I went to the U.S Chamber of Commerce website (http://www.uschamber.com/).  There I found a link to an article titled, “Small Business Owners: Uncertainty Holding Back Hiring”.  What I read is bothersome, to say the least.

As I’ve written before, small businesses are the backbone of our economy and a good gauge of our economic health.  Most small business owners believe the expiration of 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will significantly impact business growth and 58% have no plans to hire.  Of the small business owners surveyed, 72% believe the new health care laws will make it more difficult to hire new employees. Nine out of ten small business owners are concerned about the “fiscal cliff”. The fiscal cliff is the automatic tax increases and spending cuts that take effect at the start of 2013 if Congress does not produce deficit reduction legislation.  If Congress fails to act, the cuts and tax increase are expected to cause a recession relapse (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/business/congressional-budget-office-warns-of-a-fiscal-cliff.html).  So, rather than hiring, employers are taking a wait-and-see approach.   

On the U.S Chamber of Commerce (USCoC) website, I also found the written testimony by the USCoC Vice President for Environment, Technology, and Regulatory Affairs, William L. Kovacs, to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/091812tesimonyRegulationNation.pdf).  In his testimony, Mr. Kovacs states that the scope and pace of federal rulemaking has drastically increased in recent years and the increases impact the cost of doing business.  Mr. Kovacs cites a Small Business Administration study that found the total cost to comply with federal regulations was $1.75 trillion in 2008.  That’s a significant cost.  How many federal regulations have been added since 2008?

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the collection of rules and regulations passed by the federal agencies of the executive branch of the U.S. government.  In 2008, the CFR was almost 158, 000 pages.  Since then, the executive branch, headed by the President, expanded the CFR by more than 11,000 pages for total of over 169,000 pages of rules and regulations!

Mr. Kovacs points out that many regulations are beneficial and necessary.  He also points out that many regulations are imposed without regard or understanding of the costs of implementation or impacts to employment.  In his testimony, he cites specific examples of impacts on business resulting from federal regulations.

I’ve written before that small business employs nearly 50% of U.S. workers (http://active-thinker.blogspot.com/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that.html).  Small businesses are an extremely important part of the U.S. economy.  When asked what they want from Washington, 78% of small business owners said they want Washington to “get out of the way.”  Maybe the best way to grow the economy and create jobs is to elect a president and congressmen who will get out of the way of economic growth. Otherwise, we really are headed for the cliff.

Affordable Health Care?

A few days ago, a friend related, after a visit to the doctor, that a sign in the doctor’s waiting room stated that the doctor would no longer accept Medicare patients.  Another friend mentioned seeing a similar sign in his doctor’s office.  I wondered why these doctors would refuse Medicare patients, so I did some digging.

Back in February, Congress voted to extend payroll tax cuts. That legislation also postponed a 27.4% cut in Medicare physician payment rates, freezing current payment rates through December 31, 2012.  In July, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its proposed Medicare physician fee schedule, listing the various fees and allowed charges for which physicians will be reimbursed by Medicare.  The cuts contained in the proposed schedule are approximately 27%. 

A quick survey of the web indicates that most medical insurance coverage reimburses doctors at a higher rate than Medicare. By agreeing to accept Medicare patients, physicians receive a fixed payment for services, regardless of the charges.  With large payments cuts looming in the future, doctors are trying to figure out how to keep their practices from going under.

In order to stay in business, the physician must ensure that their costs of services are less than the amount paid by the patients.  To reduce costs, the physician may reduce staff, increase the number of appointments, and/or eliminate some services.

Dr. Sowell writes in his book, Basic Economics, that price controls lead to a deterioration of quality in good or services.  If you’ve been frustrated when scheduling an appointment, having been told the first available appointment is weeks or months in the future; or frustrated by the long wait time once you arrive; or disappointed that the time actually spent with the doctor is mere minutes, you would likely say the quality of service is diminished.  Another option physicians have to decrease costs is to limit the number of Medicare patients they see. 

Doctors are choosing to drop out of Medicare.  A recent survey by the Texas Medical Association showed that number of physicians accepting Medicare dropped from 78% in 2000 to 58% in 2012.  Many believe that the low reimbursement payments and the bureaucratic hassle do not provide enough incentive to provide care for Medicare patients.  So to reduce costs and remain in business, doctors are no longer accepting Medicare patients, the very ones who, quite often, need the most health care.

 If a medical practice can’t remain financially viable, then, like any other business, it must reduce costs or close its doors.  It’s that simple. The next time you hear a politician or candidate speak about “affordable health care”, find out how they plan to make it affordable.  Lowering the costs of health care, such as lowering costs of regulation compliance and administrative costs, makes it affordable.  Simply lowering the price of health care doesn’t make it affordable, it makes it scarce. 

The Policy of Good Intentions

During a newscast concerning the impacts of this summer’s drought which is decimating corn crops, the reporter stated that the President planned to direct the military to buy extra beef to alleviate the burden on farmers.  Corn is a major ingredient in livestock’s diet.  The reporter also discussed how this action, while it may help beef farmers, does nothing to help dairy farmers.  I am sympathetic to the farmers’ plight.  Farming is a tough job with little influence over the weather, disease, or pests.  But what if the military didn’t buy extra beef?  Would the farmers flood the market when they take their cattle to market early, thereby lowering beef prices?  Sure, the farmers would take a loss, but wouldn’t lower prices be good for the rest of the economy? 

 

The newscast quickly moved on to a related story that really surprised me.  The report stated that many lawmakers were requesting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suspend its mandate concerning ethanol production.  It turns out that approximately 40% of this year’s corn crop is mandated to become ethanol.  Lawmakers wanted more of this year’s crop, limited due to the drought, to be available for livestock feed.  Why is the EPA controlling the distribution of the US corn crop?  I had to find out, so I did some research.

Here’s what I found. In 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (Public Law 110-140), which amends certain provisions of the Clean Air Act.  The 1990 version of the Clean Air Act required the EPA to establish a national renewable fuel program. The purpose, according to the EPA website, is to significantly increase the volume of renewable fuel that is blended into fuels.

By law, the corn-based ethanol production quota for 2012 is 13.2 billion gallons.  According to a Cornell University study (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html), it takes 21.6 pounds of corn to create 1 gallon of ethanol. That’s 5.1 billion bushels of corn required to meet the quota. The study also states that it takes 70% more energy to create ethanol than is available in ethanol. So why are we using it in gasoline if it’s so inefficient?

Supporters say that using ethanol as a fuel reduces dependence on foreign oil and reduces greenhouse gases (i.e., carbon dioxide).  Does it really? Ethanol has only 67% of the energy contained in gasoline, so a gallon of 90% gasoline-10% ethanol (designated as E10) has 96% of the energy of a gallon of gasoline.  I drive roughly 6,500 miles per year to work and back.  Assuming my vehicle gets 20 miles per gallon, that’s 325 gallons of gasoline.  With E10, my vehicle will only get 19.2 miles per gallon.  That means 338.5 gallons of E10 to travel 6,500 miles.  So I use an extra 12.2 gallons of gasoline per year to travel the same distance using E10.  E10 isn’t as efficient as gasoline and at $4 a gallon that is $48.80 more out of my pocket.

And, E10 isn’t better for the environment.  Gasoline produces 2.44 kilograms of carbon dioxide per liter burned and ethanol produces 1.94 kilograms of carbon dioxide per liter burned.  However, because I have to burn more E10 than gasoline to drive the same number of miles, the E10 produces more carbon dioxide than the gasoline.  A study by Stanford University, indicate that increased usage of ethanol as a fuel increases smog.

Based on the math, the reasons for using ethanol don’t add up. Converting 40% of the corn crop into ethanol, especially when the corn crop is predicted by the US  Department of Agriculture to be the smallest in 17 years, will drive up corn prices.  The price will be passed along to the farmers and to the consumers.  This, in turn, will drive up food prices.  Not only is corn used to feed livestock, it is also an ingredient in many of our processed foods and beverages.  Given that we already have a weak economy, is it really smart to do this?

Reducing dependence on foreign oil and limiting air pollution are important and necessary.  But, good intentions are not a viable replacement for sound policy.  The country needs an energy policy that makes sense and doesn’t cripple the economy.  The impacts of policies should be analyzed beyond the immediate consequences.  The impacts of the drought will raise the cost of putting food on your table in many ways, but imposing ethanol use versus free market demand shouldn’t be one of them.  Contact your senator (http://www.senate.gov/) or congressmen (http://house.gov/) and let them know what you think about the current policy.  

Legacy of the First Man

One of my childhood heroes died recently. Neil Armstrong, 82, was commander of the Apollo 11 mission, the first lunar landing. As I got older and learned more about the man, I found much to admire about him. He was an Eagle Scout, an engineer, a Korean War veteran, and a test pilot. I was impressed that after leaving NASA, he didn’t cash in on his fame; he became a professor of aerospace engineering, using his experience and expertise to teach future engineers.

By Presidential proclamation, the US flag flew at half-mast in honor of Armstrong.  Many have issued statements concerning Armstrong’s passing, praising him and his accomplishments. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, stated that Armstrong will be “remembered for taking humankind’s first small step on a world beyond our own.”  My heart goes out to the Armstrong family and I offer my condolences for the loss of a father, a grandfather, and husband.  But I’m not writing to praise Armstrong or his accomplishments; I’m writing about his legacy.

As a child, Neil Armstrong was my hero because he was an astronaut and the first person to set foot on the moon.  He and the 11 other astronauts who walked on the moon inspired me. I wanted to be an astronaut and a pilot because I saw what they accomplished.  The US Space Program’s accomplishments sparked my interest in science and math.  I became an engineer and a part of the US Space Program.

The US Human Space Program has done some amazing things since December of 1972, when the final Apollo lunar mission left the Moon’s surface.  A technological marvel, the Space Shuttle flew 133 successful missions and traveled almost 550 million miles in 30 years.  We’ve launched two space stations. The first one, Skylab, launched in 1973, played host to three crews, with the third crew living on orbit for 84 days, a record for US spaceflight at the time. 

The second, the International Space Station (ISS), has been continuously crewed since March 2, 2000, for over 4300 days.  The ISS vehicle is 239 feet long by 356 feet wide by 66 feet high. The habitable volume is equivalent to a five bedroom house. The eight solar array wings, each 115 feet long by 39 feet wide, generate enough electricity to power 120 homes.  In addition to being an incredible engineering feat, it is proof that we can work in space and we can cooperate with international partners on a grand scale.

Yes, we’ve done some grand things, but the Shuttle is retired and the US has no human launch capability.  Since December 1972, humans have not travelled farther than 380 miles above the Earth.  For the last 40 years, we’ve been making left-hand turns around the Earth.  NASA has no concrete plans to go back to the moon and NASA says it is “… designing and building the capabilities to send humans to explore the solar system, working toward a goal of landing humans on Mars.” 

However, the reality is that NASA’s plans for a new spacecraft and a new launch vehicle are depressing.  According to NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf) the new spacecraft and launch vehicle would make an unmanned flight in 2017. A second, manned mission would occur in 2021 and proceed with a launch rate of one mission per year thereafter.  There are plans for a second launch vehicle with heavier lift capability, but the plans don’t include taking humans anywhere.

NASA is the agency that implements the US Human Space Policy.  As with all federal government agencies, it exists to serve the American public. Tell NASA, your Congressman, and your Senator what you want NASA to do and where you think we should explore.  It would be a crime for Armstrong’s legacy to end in left-hand turns around the Earth.  

Under Pressure

Last week, the kids headed back to school.  As with every new school year, there was a mixture of excitement and angst.  Even the kids were excited (I think).

It’s a tough job being a student.  There’s peer pressure, pressure to achieve academically, pressure to excel in sports, and the pressure to fit too many activities in too little time.  A Columbia University study found that 60% of high school students surveyed responded that they attended a “drug-infected” school.  The study also pointed out that “digital peer pressure” in the form of social media, makes a significantly negative impact on students, heavily influencing their decisions on the use of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.

Students are under pressure to excel academically to get into college or to pass the numerous standardized tests imposed by state and federal education departments. A study by the Educational Testing Service, the organization that administers the Graduate Record Examinations and other standardized tests, estimates that 75% of high school students participate in academic cheating and the cheating is due, primarily, to the emphasis on high grades.

Athletes are also pressured to excel.  According to a survey by the Josephson Institute Center for Sports Ethics, in addition to pressure from overbearing parents, many athletes are pressured to cheat to maintain academic eligibility or comply with the “win at all costs” attitudes of coaches and fellow players.

A 2006 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics says students' lives are overscheduled long before they enter their teenage years. The report faults "changes in family structure, competitive college admissions process[es], federal education policies [and] fear a child may fall behind academically" for compelling parents to enroll their children in plenty of "developmental activities."

As I said, it’s tough being a student. I can’t imagine going through the high school years again.  Daily, students deal with negative peers, negative coaches, negative teachers, and a negative school environment.  They are overscheduled and their efforts are often underappreciated.  As parents and mentors, it’s up to us to fill them up with positive encouragement and praise.

How? Take time to listen to them and to understand their concerns.  Sure, whatever is on their mind today may be forgotten in a few days, but at the moment it’s huge to them.  Find some time to spend with them away from the normal routine and distractions, and simply listen to what they say.  Sometimes, all they want is for someone to listen.  Make your praise specific.  Instead of simply saying “good job”, tell them what the good job was so they know you were paying attention.  And don’t be stingy with the praise; it costs you nothing to give.

As the kids go off to school this year, I pray that they have successful and happy school years.  Whether you are a parent, a teacher, a coach, or a youth leader, give your students what they want; someone to set healthy boundaries and a relationship with an adult that truly cares about them.  As Herbert Hoover said, “Children are our most valuable resource.”