It's finally here. After one of the longest, ugliest, most prolonged battles I've ever seen, today is the day we cast our votes. Many have already voted and I think that's good. I voted absentee once when I lived in NC, I can't remember why. SC doesn't have early voting, so to vote early here you have to sign an affidavit saying you can't be there on election day. Any reason is acceptable, but I just feel funny when I know I can be here.
So, in about 6 hours, I'll walk about 1/4 mile to my voting place. It's nice being that close, and I'll save the parking spaces for those who have to go further. Surprisingly, my son has asked me to wake him up when I go so that he can go with me. It's his first election and until last night I wasn't sure he was going to vote. His reasons seemed actually to make sense, but I won't fight his battles here.
Sometime tonight (in theory), we will know who the next president/vice president will be. Unless something really unusual happens, we will either have the first African-American President-Elect or the first female Vice President-Elect. It's a historic election. We've had African-American candidates before (Alan Keyes to name one) and we've had a female VP candidate (Geraldine Ferraro). But this is the first time we've had them on both major parties' ticket.
Regardless who wins, the election process, as ugly as it has been, serves to inform us. We know more about both candidates than ever before. We have the potential to take the issues that concern us the most and evaluate the candidates' responses. What will the next President face? We may not know, but we should be able to estimate how they will react.
But at the end of the day, or the end of the voting, one thing will still be true. Actually, several things will still be true. 1) President Bush will still be president. 2) God is still in control.
When you think about that last one, what else really matters?
* Update - I just finished voting. From the time I got in line until the time I walked out, under 1 hour total. Our state limits you to 3 minutes in the voting booth and does electronic touch-screen voting. I took my time, reviewed each selection before I made it, reviewed it again after I made it, then went through the final review twice to be sure. Not sure how long I was in the booth, but it was under the 3 minutes easily. 1/2 mile of walking up & back, I won't have to exercise for another month now.
Showing posts with label campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Immigration
Unless you missed it, Greenville, SC made national news last week. Federal immigration officials raided a poultry processing plant. The result was that 330 workers were arrested who are "believed to be in the country illegally." This was at House of Raeford's Columbia Farms plant.
Back in January when I was establishing my political platform for the presidency (I've since withdrawn from the race), I was asked about my opinions on immigration. I responded at the time in this post.
I'd like to take credit for influencing the raid (and maybe rejoin the presidential race?). Seems the ICE officials followed a lot of my ideas. First, they followed my advice by enforcing the laws as they exist today.
An important note is that it was not only the illegal immigrants who were arrested, The Greenville News reported that 12 other employees were arrested/indicted on charges of immigration fraud. Someone at Columbia Farms had to know that this was going on, I'm glad to know they have been arrested also. How deep was the fraud? Well, the HR manager has been charged with "20 felony counts on charges of encouraging supervisors to falsify employment documents."
It should also be noted that ICE agents reviewed 825 I-9 forms "that verify a worker's immigration status -- and of those, 94 percent were found to be falsified" (see here).
So what's next? Well, about 1/4 of those arrested have been released (and will be monitored) to allow them to care for dependent children. And the belief is that "the majority of illegal workers will be administratively processed and deported."
We need to realize that the individuals involved are humans. One commenter noted that "families are going to be broken apart," to the folks at CNN. Also, some of the children, by fact that they were born here, are US Citizens. You may not like this, but it's the law. That's not an excuse to avoid deportation, but it is an indictment on the way we should treat these people: with respect.
I heard a report (unconfirmed) that the day after the raid, there was a line outside House of Raeford's for applications. After all, everyone knew that there were now 330 job openings. Seems the jobs aren't the ones that America won't take. Over a year ago, I commented on that idea (see here). I won't be putting a chicken breast on a machine at the plant any time soon, but I did have a job similar to this in high school. I decided it was something I didn't want to do for the rest of my life and went to college.
So here's my summary: Suspected illegal immigrants have been arrested. A judge will decide if they are illegal (should make Dan Kowalksi, "an Austin, Texas-based lawyer specializing in immigration law" happy). If they are illegal, they will be deported. Families may be affected and we as citizens need to step up to taking care of those who remain. Oh, and there are now some job openings in Greenville, SC
Back in January when I was establishing my political platform for the presidency (I've since withdrawn from the race), I was asked about my opinions on immigration. I responded at the time in this post.
I'd like to take credit for influencing the raid (and maybe rejoin the presidential race?). Seems the ICE officials followed a lot of my ideas. First, they followed my advice by enforcing the laws as they exist today.
An important note is that it was not only the illegal immigrants who were arrested, The Greenville News reported that 12 other employees were arrested/indicted on charges of immigration fraud. Someone at Columbia Farms had to know that this was going on, I'm glad to know they have been arrested also. How deep was the fraud? Well, the HR manager has been charged with "20 felony counts on charges of encouraging supervisors to falsify employment documents."
It should also be noted that ICE agents reviewed 825 I-9 forms "that verify a worker's immigration status -- and of those, 94 percent were found to be falsified" (see here).
So what's next? Well, about 1/4 of those arrested have been released (and will be monitored) to allow them to care for dependent children. And the belief is that "the majority of illegal workers will be administratively processed and deported."
We need to realize that the individuals involved are humans. One commenter noted that "families are going to be broken apart," to the folks at CNN. Also, some of the children, by fact that they were born here, are US Citizens. You may not like this, but it's the law. That's not an excuse to avoid deportation, but it is an indictment on the way we should treat these people: with respect.
I heard a report (unconfirmed) that the day after the raid, there was a line outside House of Raeford's for applications. After all, everyone knew that there were now 330 job openings. Seems the jobs aren't the ones that America won't take. Over a year ago, I commented on that idea (see here). I won't be putting a chicken breast on a machine at the plant any time soon, but I did have a job similar to this in high school. I decided it was something I didn't want to do for the rest of my life and went to college.
So here's my summary: Suspected illegal immigrants have been arrested. A judge will decide if they are illegal (should make Dan Kowalksi, "an Austin, Texas-based lawyer specializing in immigration law" happy). If they are illegal, they will be deported. Families may be affected and we as citizens need to step up to taking care of those who remain. Oh, and there are now some job openings in Greenville, SC
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
I approved this message - Final message
Ok, I've outlined the various parts of my platform (if I were truly running for president), now it's time for me to endorse one of the actual candidates. At this point, there are basically only three candidates left in the race (Clinton, McCain and Obama).
This will also (hopefully) be my last post about politics for a while, I really don't like talking about it. Only when I get fired up about an event or feel the need to think "out loud" like I've been doing in this thread. Please feel free to go back and comment on any specific entries or on this entry if you have opinions that you wish to share with me.
If you read my platform planks my choice should be pretty obvious. I've said that the number one priority of the new president should be on National Defense, in particular, the Global War on Terror. I also believe we have an obligation to finish the job we started in Iraq. That's whether you believe we should have gone in there or not. This is followed closely by my focus on foreign affairs. I outlined which countries we should work with and which ones we should work on.
This tied closely to the third item on my list: isolationism, a policy I'm firmly against. I take this a step further and believe we must, from time to time, flex our muscle in the matters of other nations.
My fourth priority is the economy. Then there's the issue of healthcare, before I go into everything else that's left. I fully confess to not having all the solutions, but since I outlined priorities, the first three items get most of the attention.
Most of the republican candidates could have gotten my vote. Duncan Hunter kinda scared me with his too-strong opinion on defense. Ron Paul seems to advocate isolationism. I admit I haven't paid much attention to either of them. Mitt Romney's religion doesn't bother me and while I haven't paid much attention to Mike Huckaby, from what I know he could do the job well.
I only know a little about three of the Democratic contenders: Edwards is out of the race and it's non-too-early. His anti-big-business ideas stem from being a trial lawyer and I think he could really mess up the economy. I've never had the opinion he understood anything else at all. I have to give Obama credit for documenting his ideas. I've visited his website and I've read some of his plans for America. He honestly scares me with his ideas of sitting down with leaders of nefarious countries. He also will get us out of Iraq too quickly and cause a bigger mess than we started with.
Clinton scares me the least of the Democrats. She's intelligent enough to know that you have to compromise and even the "vast right-wing conspiracy" can make her see the light, given enough time. I do think she could enact enough well-thought-out-but-dangerous policies in the first 100 days to cause a lot of problems.
Based on all of this, my vote this fall will be going to McCain.
I should note that this is the first time in my life where I formally said who I was voting for. I typically keep my vote secret, even from family members. Hopefully, I won't regret this departure from the norm.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
This will also (hopefully) be my last post about politics for a while, I really don't like talking about it. Only when I get fired up about an event or feel the need to think "out loud" like I've been doing in this thread. Please feel free to go back and comment on any specific entries or on this entry if you have opinions that you wish to share with me.
If you read my platform planks my choice should be pretty obvious. I've said that the number one priority of the new president should be on National Defense, in particular, the Global War on Terror. I also believe we have an obligation to finish the job we started in Iraq. That's whether you believe we should have gone in there or not. This is followed closely by my focus on foreign affairs. I outlined which countries we should work with and which ones we should work on.
This tied closely to the third item on my list: isolationism, a policy I'm firmly against. I take this a step further and believe we must, from time to time, flex our muscle in the matters of other nations.
My fourth priority is the economy. Then there's the issue of healthcare, before I go into everything else that's left. I fully confess to not having all the solutions, but since I outlined priorities, the first three items get most of the attention.
Most of the republican candidates could have gotten my vote. Duncan Hunter kinda scared me with his too-strong opinion on defense. Ron Paul seems to advocate isolationism. I admit I haven't paid much attention to either of them. Mitt Romney's religion doesn't bother me and while I haven't paid much attention to Mike Huckaby, from what I know he could do the job well.
I only know a little about three of the Democratic contenders: Edwards is out of the race and it's non-too-early. His anti-big-business ideas stem from being a trial lawyer and I think he could really mess up the economy. I've never had the opinion he understood anything else at all. I have to give Obama credit for documenting his ideas. I've visited his website and I've read some of his plans for America. He honestly scares me with his ideas of sitting down with leaders of nefarious countries. He also will get us out of Iraq too quickly and cause a bigger mess than we started with.
Clinton scares me the least of the Democrats. She's intelligent enough to know that you have to compromise and even the "vast right-wing conspiracy" can make her see the light, given enough time. I do think she could enact enough well-thought-out-but-dangerous policies in the first 100 days to cause a lot of problems.
Based on all of this, my vote this fall will be going to McCain.
I should note that this is the first time in my life where I formally said who I was voting for. I typically keep my vote secret, even from family members. Hopefully, I won't regret this departure from the norm.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Universal HealtCare - I approved this message part 4.5
I've numbered this message part 4.5 because it comes somewhere between part 4 (the economy) and part 5 (education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits). My regular readers will remember that I'm outlining the policies I would follow if I were elected president. I should point out that not all presidential candidates do this. To my knowledge, only one of the current candidates has done this. Barack Obama has a book that describes his ideas. He also has extensive information on his website. He's accused of giving on lofty ideas in his campaign speeches. It's hard to tell from the sound bites if that's true, but I don't fault him for that. I think he's giving the public what they want, and doing a very good job of it.
Sen. Clinton has also written a book, and I presume it says something about what she would do as president. I don't think McCain has a book and I haven't checked either website.
But back to my platform, and this time it's on healthcare. Originally, I had grouped this in item #5 because I simply didn't think it needed much attention. However, more thought has led me to flip-flops, or at least partially. Let me explain some basic facts.
I know of 2 or 3 situations where someone has gone to the hospital without medical coverage. In one case, bills totaled over $200,00, probably closer to $500,00 when all was complete. In another situation, the person could have gone to a doctor or a doc-in-a-box, but instead went to the ER. They left without paying and count on the state tax refund to pay the bill (the hospital can garnish the state refund). Currently, a hospital must treat someone who can't afford it, and the state pays it. If they can get the money back later, they will try, otherwise the taxpayer foots the bill.
For those of marginal income, but who try to pay their bills, medical care can wipe out their chances for advancement. Costs are out of hand. I had back surgery two years ago, it cost over $20,000 for one night in the hospital. I didn't even see the doctor after the surgery before discharge.
Normally, I'd say this isn't a federal problem, but the states can't handle it and private industry has no incentive. The system has come to the point where we can do more medical care than we can afford. As the baby boom generation ages, this will only get worse.
To begin with, I firmly believe additional competition is required. Ratings for insurance, hospitals and doctors should be established so that the patient can determine the best choices. Rather than create a new agency, the AMA should govern the doctors and hospitals. There is no comparable agency or group for insurance, one will (reluctantly) have to be created.
Insurance should be just that, insurance. Elective surgery or anticpated hospital requirements should not be covered. (Take a deep breath here). That means normal pregnancies should not be covered. Instead families should pay for their own delivery. This will have to be phased in over time as the current cost is way to high. I would appoint a team of doctors and insurance-minded people to determine how to implement this (that means I have no idea).
Something has to be done to reign in the cost of medicines. I am a big believer in profits and I understand the amount of research that goes into creating a new medicine, but the number of medical sales people and the perks they give out goes way too far.
Obviously, I'm short on details. But let me explain some problems I see with other plans. Many focus on the "big business" as the evil, I instead embrace big business. Many would give everyone equal access, I would focus on individual responsibility. If I as a consumer want to purchase additional insurance, or purchas something that will give me better access to health care, I think that should be allowed. The idea that everyone gets the same access is socialist.
We conseervatives have long been seen as being uncaring. I don't want to be that way. I don't know of any real solution to this problem and I've put it low on my priority lst, but I intentionally didn't put it last.
Sen. Clinton has also written a book, and I presume it says something about what she would do as president. I don't think McCain has a book and I haven't checked either website.
But back to my platform, and this time it's on healthcare. Originally, I had grouped this in item #5 because I simply didn't think it needed much attention. However, more thought has led me to flip-flops, or at least partially. Let me explain some basic facts.
I know of 2 or 3 situations where someone has gone to the hospital without medical coverage. In one case, bills totaled over $200,00, probably closer to $500,00 when all was complete. In another situation, the person could have gone to a doctor or a doc-in-a-box, but instead went to the ER. They left without paying and count on the state tax refund to pay the bill (the hospital can garnish the state refund). Currently, a hospital must treat someone who can't afford it, and the state pays it. If they can get the money back later, they will try, otherwise the taxpayer foots the bill.
For those of marginal income, but who try to pay their bills, medical care can wipe out their chances for advancement. Costs are out of hand. I had back surgery two years ago, it cost over $20,000 for one night in the hospital. I didn't even see the doctor after the surgery before discharge.
Normally, I'd say this isn't a federal problem, but the states can't handle it and private industry has no incentive. The system has come to the point where we can do more medical care than we can afford. As the baby boom generation ages, this will only get worse.
To begin with, I firmly believe additional competition is required. Ratings for insurance, hospitals and doctors should be established so that the patient can determine the best choices. Rather than create a new agency, the AMA should govern the doctors and hospitals. There is no comparable agency or group for insurance, one will (reluctantly) have to be created.
Insurance should be just that, insurance. Elective surgery or anticpated hospital requirements should not be covered. (Take a deep breath here). That means normal pregnancies should not be covered. Instead families should pay for their own delivery. This will have to be phased in over time as the current cost is way to high. I would appoint a team of doctors and insurance-minded people to determine how to implement this (that means I have no idea).
Something has to be done to reign in the cost of medicines. I am a big believer in profits and I understand the amount of research that goes into creating a new medicine, but the number of medical sales people and the perks they give out goes way too far.
Obviously, I'm short on details. But let me explain some problems I see with other plans. Many focus on the "big business" as the evil, I instead embrace big business. Many would give everyone equal access, I would focus on individual responsibility. If I as a consumer want to purchase additional insurance, or purchas something that will give me better access to health care, I think that should be allowed. The idea that everyone gets the same access is socialist.
We conseervatives have long been seen as being uncaring. I don't want to be that way. I don't know of any real solution to this problem and I've put it low on my priority lst, but I intentionally didn't put it last.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I approved this message - Part 5 (Final?)
I'm almost finished explaining the platform I would follow if elected president. This is the last planned message and is intended to address healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits. Previous mssages addressed 1) National Defense, 2) Foreign affairs, 2b)
Immigration, 3) Isolationism and 4) the national economy.
I grouped together the topics of healthcare, education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits because, frankly I don't believe these issues deserve a lot of discussion. I put the topics listed above in order of priority and these other issues just don't measure up. I have changed my mind somewhat on healthcare, I'm going to put that as topic 4.5 (bewteen 4 & 5) and come back to that after this discussion.
However, many people want to know the presidential candidates' opinions on these topics, so
this entry will discuss my views on education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits.
Education. I'm for it. I think education is important for the success of every individual and for our country. For the record, I have an MBA, my wife has a Master's of Ed. She's a school teacher. My sister is a guidance counselor. I may be biased (so sue me). I think education is important, but I don't think it's a federal issue. No where in the Constitution, which the President is sworn to uphold, is education mentioned. I think education should be left to the states with minimal federal intervention.
I also think education is overblown. We tell people "you have to have an education" then charge them $50,000 or more for 4 years of college and don't give them a way to pay it back. Every school that offers a for-fee education should be forced to show a good-faith estimate of how long it will take to pay back the education. If the education is for fun (I plan to take some of those courses), that's ok, you just should know that taking oboe lessons will never make you more money. Of course, since the federal government will be out of education, there will be no federal mandates on this.
Abortion. I'm against it. I will be glad to change to pro-choice, once we figure out how to give the baby a choice. (this next part will probably offend some of my conservative friends). I will not make abortion a litmus test for choosing judges, cabinet members or friends. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have purposely put this issue as #5 (and last) in my priority list. Frankly, the president has better things to do.
Global warming. I think it's a farce. I'd appoint Al Gore amabassador in charge of sewers.
Carbon credits. What a laugh. I need to find the companies issuing the credits and buy stock in them.
Don't get me wrong, I am an enviromentalist. God gave us this world and told us to take care of it. Frankly, we've done a lousy job. Someday (soon I hope), He's going to come in here and fire us. We should do all that we can to conserve natural resources. We should strive to be stewards of what He gave to us. But let's also remember that He gave it to us and told us to dominate.
Well, I'm sure to lose some votes over this post and I didn't have that many to begin with, so I better quit while I'm behind.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
Immigration, 3) Isolationism and 4) the national economy.
I grouped together the topics of healthcare, education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits because, frankly I don't believe these issues deserve a lot of discussion. I put the topics listed above in order of priority and these other issues just don't measure up. I have changed my mind somewhat on healthcare, I'm going to put that as topic 4.5 (bewteen 4 & 5) and come back to that after this discussion.
However, many people want to know the presidential candidates' opinions on these topics, so
this entry will discuss my views on education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits.
Education. I'm for it. I think education is important for the success of every individual and for our country. For the record, I have an MBA, my wife has a Master's of Ed. She's a school teacher. My sister is a guidance counselor. I may be biased (so sue me). I think education is important, but I don't think it's a federal issue. No where in the Constitution, which the President is sworn to uphold, is education mentioned. I think education should be left to the states with minimal federal intervention.
I also think education is overblown. We tell people "you have to have an education" then charge them $50,000 or more for 4 years of college and don't give them a way to pay it back. Every school that offers a for-fee education should be forced to show a good-faith estimate of how long it will take to pay back the education. If the education is for fun (I plan to take some of those courses), that's ok, you just should know that taking oboe lessons will never make you more money. Of course, since the federal government will be out of education, there will be no federal mandates on this.
Abortion. I'm against it. I will be glad to change to pro-choice, once we figure out how to give the baby a choice. (this next part will probably offend some of my conservative friends). I will not make abortion a litmus test for choosing judges, cabinet members or friends. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have purposely put this issue as #5 (and last) in my priority list. Frankly, the president has better things to do.
Global warming. I think it's a farce. I'd appoint Al Gore amabassador in charge of sewers.
Carbon credits. What a laugh. I need to find the companies issuing the credits and buy stock in them.
Don't get me wrong, I am an enviromentalist. God gave us this world and told us to take care of it. Frankly, we've done a lousy job. Someday (soon I hope), He's going to come in here and fire us. We should do all that we can to conserve natural resources. We should strive to be stewards of what He gave to us. But let's also remember that He gave it to us and told us to dominate.
Well, I'm sure to lose some votes over this post and I didn't have that many to begin with, so I better quit while I'm behind.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
Friday, February 08, 2008
It's the economy stupid (Platform building #4)
I couldn't resist that headline. For those with a weak memory, that was the mantra of those who swept Clinton-1 into office after Bush-1 led the nation in Iraq-1. When the troops all returned, the economy stumbled. Bush-1 seemed to ignore the issue and lo, the mantra.
Now with the mortgage crisis, rising credit card rates and bank fees (in the paper this week), slowing employment, etc. I'm surprised the mantra isn't gaining more ground than it did 16 years ago. As Bush-2 has taken us into Iraq-2 (which has taken much too long), the American
people have become discontent and the econonmy stands to have a lot of attention this election year.
As a part of my platform building, I too will address the economy. Notice however, that I have placed it as a fourth priority. Yes it's important, but it falls behind defense, foreign affairs and isolationism issues.
So, as a presidential candidate myself, what would I do about the economy (or more accurate, what do I think a presidential candidate should do)? I see the economy as encompassing the subjects of jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending.
First, our economy runs on jobs. Jobs that produce something. During the recent economic boom, too many jobs were created that produced nothing. Day traders were the epitomy of the description of our boom. Also, hedge funds and the like. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, it's just that they don't produce anything. When I go to the store to buy an item, I help jobs of several people. There's the salesman in the store who convinces me htat his item is better than his competitors and helps me pick the appropriate size and style for my needs.
There may be a cashier at the store to check me out. There are several managers that also get paid based on my buying something. Then there's the guy who drove the truck to the store and deliverd the items. Back at some factory, there's the guy who made the item. And all the people
that help him.
There's also the guy who built the truck that delivered the item and the guy that built the machines that was used to make the item. Should I go on? Basically, all of these people produced something or sold something that was produced.
The lack of these type jobs has created new problems. The mortgage crisis is one such problem. People have purchased houses, done some work on them and then re-sold them. Now notice that they did some work. They did produce something (a better house). But they flipped the house
hoping to make a quick buck. One of my favorite radio personalities is Dave Ramsey and he often quotes Proverbs 28:22 which says (in my translation) "He who hastens to get rich, will not go unpunished." Many people have bought houses they can't afford, counting on the fact
they could refinance the mortgage before it adjusted. However, when houses around them lost money, they found they could no longer refinance. In many cases, these peopler were talked into the homes by unscrupulous realtors, appraisers and bankers.
How do we build an economy of jobs? Through appropriate taxation. Too many of our taxes focus on taking money from "big business". Instead, we should focus on letting "big business" do what it does best, making something. When they make something, they create jobs. People with
jobs tend to buy things. When they buy things, businesses make more things. This is a good thing.
As a part of this, we should encourage businesses to offer job training. By training their employees, business show re-investment to grow their potential business. It also shows the employee that he should not stop learning.
I have to do an aside hear about the business of education. I have a BS and an MBA degree, my wife has a BS and MA. I have two children with Master's degrees and one that will soon have a BA degree. If you count sons & daughters in law, there are 3 more BA/BS degrees. Can you tell
I think highly of education? But it should be education that PRODUCES something. There are too many "education" facilities that work hard to give you classes, but they work harder to get your money. By getting student loans for you and giving you classes that don't produce
anything, they sentence you to years of poverty paying back that student loan. I heard a lady call in to a radio show that had more than $80,000 in student loan debt to become an oboe player. She will never earn enough as an oboe player to come close to paying that back.
There's nothing wrong with education for fun or personal growth. I've taken classes like this myself. This is called a hobby. But you must be able to pay for it.
Now that I've covered jobs and training and touched on mortgages (more details on mortgages here), all that's left is a little more on housing, taxes and spending.
Housing is a good thing. Everyone should have a house. Or a condo. Or an apartment. But not everyone can afford to BUY a house. The government should help first-time buyers. (Some of my conservative friends just had a heart attack). Part of the help should be to help understand a mortgage. Understand that if you don't pay it back, you will loose. In the past, FHA helped people like this, but I'm not sure they do anymore. I would increase the responsibility of this organization and make home-owners proud to say they use FHA to help buy their home.
Taxes are a bad thing. Unfortunately, they're required. Some people are excited about the "flat tax" or the "fair tax" (which sounds like an oxymoron). I don't get excited about any kind of tax. I also think that congress has never seen a tax it didn't like. I don't think a radical change in the tax methods would help anything and would likely invite more problems. I know a CPA who used to say that he got excited every time that he heard congress talk about "tax simplification", it meant more business for him. Basically, I would work to decrease tax rates and eliminate some taxes without making radical changes.
Spending by the government is another bad thing. The government spends more than it takes in, when I've tried to do that, I've created new problems. Part of our current economic problems have been caused by government spending. Each government program should be evaluated to see if it can be cut or how much it can be cut. But not every program can be cut and some should be increased (e.g. defense). We can't spend our way to prosperity and we can't cut our way there either.
That's my overall economic view. I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Just post your comments here. I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.
Now with the mortgage crisis, rising credit card rates and bank fees (in the paper this week), slowing employment, etc. I'm surprised the mantra isn't gaining more ground than it did 16 years ago. As Bush-2 has taken us into Iraq-2 (which has taken much too long), the American
people have become discontent and the econonmy stands to have a lot of attention this election year.
As a part of my platform building, I too will address the economy. Notice however, that I have placed it as a fourth priority. Yes it's important, but it falls behind defense, foreign affairs and isolationism issues.
So, as a presidential candidate myself, what would I do about the economy (or more accurate, what do I think a presidential candidate should do)? I see the economy as encompassing the subjects of jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending.
First, our economy runs on jobs. Jobs that produce something. During the recent economic boom, too many jobs were created that produced nothing. Day traders were the epitomy of the description of our boom. Also, hedge funds and the like. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, it's just that they don't produce anything. When I go to the store to buy an item, I help jobs of several people. There's the salesman in the store who convinces me htat his item is better than his competitors and helps me pick the appropriate size and style for my needs.
There may be a cashier at the store to check me out. There are several managers that also get paid based on my buying something. Then there's the guy who drove the truck to the store and deliverd the items. Back at some factory, there's the guy who made the item. And all the people
that help him.
There's also the guy who built the truck that delivered the item and the guy that built the machines that was used to make the item. Should I go on? Basically, all of these people produced something or sold something that was produced.
The lack of these type jobs has created new problems. The mortgage crisis is one such problem. People have purchased houses, done some work on them and then re-sold them. Now notice that they did some work. They did produce something (a better house). But they flipped the house
hoping to make a quick buck. One of my favorite radio personalities is Dave Ramsey and he often quotes Proverbs 28:22 which says (in my translation) "He who hastens to get rich, will not go unpunished." Many people have bought houses they can't afford, counting on the fact
they could refinance the mortgage before it adjusted. However, when houses around them lost money, they found they could no longer refinance. In many cases, these peopler were talked into the homes by unscrupulous realtors, appraisers and bankers.
How do we build an economy of jobs? Through appropriate taxation. Too many of our taxes focus on taking money from "big business". Instead, we should focus on letting "big business" do what it does best, making something. When they make something, they create jobs. People with
jobs tend to buy things. When they buy things, businesses make more things. This is a good thing.
As a part of this, we should encourage businesses to offer job training. By training their employees, business show re-investment to grow their potential business. It also shows the employee that he should not stop learning.
I have to do an aside hear about the business of education. I have a BS and an MBA degree, my wife has a BS and MA. I have two children with Master's degrees and one that will soon have a BA degree. If you count sons & daughters in law, there are 3 more BA/BS degrees. Can you tell
I think highly of education? But it should be education that PRODUCES something. There are too many "education" facilities that work hard to give you classes, but they work harder to get your money. By getting student loans for you and giving you classes that don't produce
anything, they sentence you to years of poverty paying back that student loan. I heard a lady call in to a radio show that had more than $80,000 in student loan debt to become an oboe player. She will never earn enough as an oboe player to come close to paying that back.
There's nothing wrong with education for fun or personal growth. I've taken classes like this myself. This is called a hobby. But you must be able to pay for it.
Now that I've covered jobs and training and touched on mortgages (more details on mortgages here), all that's left is a little more on housing, taxes and spending.
Housing is a good thing. Everyone should have a house. Or a condo. Or an apartment. But not everyone can afford to BUY a house. The government should help first-time buyers. (Some of my conservative friends just had a heart attack). Part of the help should be to help understand a mortgage. Understand that if you don't pay it back, you will loose. In the past, FHA helped people like this, but I'm not sure they do anymore. I would increase the responsibility of this organization and make home-owners proud to say they use FHA to help buy their home.
Taxes are a bad thing. Unfortunately, they're required. Some people are excited about the "flat tax" or the "fair tax" (which sounds like an oxymoron). I don't get excited about any kind of tax. I also think that congress has never seen a tax it didn't like. I don't think a radical change in the tax methods would help anything and would likely invite more problems. I know a CPA who used to say that he got excited every time that he heard congress talk about "tax simplification", it meant more business for him. Basically, I would work to decrease tax rates and eliminate some taxes without making radical changes.
Spending by the government is another bad thing. The government spends more than it takes in, when I've tried to do that, I've created new problems. Part of our current economic problems have been caused by government spending. Each government program should be evaluated to see if it can be cut or how much it can be cut. But not every program can be cut and some should be increased (e.g. defense). We can't spend our way to prosperity and we can't cut our way there either.
That's my overall economic view. I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Just post your comments here. I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
I approved this message part 2b - Immigration
As I promised Ashley B back when I posted I posted on Foreign Affairs, I'm going to post a comment or two on immigration. This topic goes well with my discussion on Foreign Affairs and I had originally planned to bring it up then. Thanks to Ashley for reminding me.
When I look back at my previous posts, I commented somewhat on immgiration back in June (see that post here). At the time, I was complaining about the argument that so many make, that there are jobs that Americans simply won't take. I won't repeat everything I said there, but to summarize, I said this argument was baloney.
With that argument taken away, the question is what to do about the immigrants? Well, the first thing is to acknowledge that all Americans trace their roots back to immigrants. If you believe the Biblical account of creation, and I do, we all trace back to somewhere outside Baghdad (wouldn't Saddam be proud). Every other account I've seen also traces humanity to somewhere in Mesopotamia. Either way, we're all immigrants.
That means we should allow immigration, but for economic reasons, we should limit it. But wait, there are already laws on the books to handle that, why don't we just enforce the laws. Beginning the day I take office, I will endeavor to STOP illegal immigration. Instead of deciding for myself which is best, a wall, electronic surveillance, etc, I will trust the head of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to make that decision. Then I will empower him (read that $$$) to accomplish the goal. If it's not accomplished within one year, a new head of ICE will be found.
Once that matter is settled (the first day in office), I will take up the matter of illegal immigrants currently in the US. This is quite delicate. These individuals are human: man, woman or child and we have used their labor for the last several years. Yes, they are law breakers, as my conservative friends will point out. But they came here with hope. They should not get preferential treatment over legal aliens, but as humans we can't simply deport them all.
I will be accused of providing amnesty, but I believe we have to let them stay as legal aliens for a time. I believe (not certain) that legal aliens can stay for up to two years on a work visa. The illegals should be given this same length of time as a "pass". Then, if they are willing to exit the country, they can reapply for legal immigration. Due to the number of people involved, it may be necessary to phase in the two year "pass" so that they don't all exit at the same time.
Any comments?
When I look back at my previous posts, I commented somewhat on immgiration back in June (see that post here). At the time, I was complaining about the argument that so many make, that there are jobs that Americans simply won't take. I won't repeat everything I said there, but to summarize, I said this argument was baloney.
With that argument taken away, the question is what to do about the immigrants? Well, the first thing is to acknowledge that all Americans trace their roots back to immigrants. If you believe the Biblical account of creation, and I do, we all trace back to somewhere outside Baghdad (wouldn't Saddam be proud). Every other account I've seen also traces humanity to somewhere in Mesopotamia. Either way, we're all immigrants.
That means we should allow immigration, but for economic reasons, we should limit it. But wait, there are already laws on the books to handle that, why don't we just enforce the laws. Beginning the day I take office, I will endeavor to STOP illegal immigration. Instead of deciding for myself which is best, a wall, electronic surveillance, etc, I will trust the head of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to make that decision. Then I will empower him (read that $$$) to accomplish the goal. If it's not accomplished within one year, a new head of ICE will be found.
Once that matter is settled (the first day in office), I will take up the matter of illegal immigrants currently in the US. This is quite delicate. These individuals are human: man, woman or child and we have used their labor for the last several years. Yes, they are law breakers, as my conservative friends will point out. But they came here with hope. They should not get preferential treatment over legal aliens, but as humans we can't simply deport them all.
I will be accused of providing amnesty, but I believe we have to let them stay as legal aliens for a time. I believe (not certain) that legal aliens can stay for up to two years on a work visa. The illegals should be given this same length of time as a "pass". Then, if they are willing to exit the country, they can reapply for legal immigration. Due to the number of people involved, it may be necessary to phase in the two year "pass" so that they don't all exit at the same time.
Any comments?
Friday, January 18, 2008
I approved this message - Foreign affairs
I've been extremely busy and unable to get to my second point until today. But, as previously noted, my popularity seems to have managed quite well even in my absense. 100% approval rating of my previous comments and Google front page status can't lie - I'm in it to win.
But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.
My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)
I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).
I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).
Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.
Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.
It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.
I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.
Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.
Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.
South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.
That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.
But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.
My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)
I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).
I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).
Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.
Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.
It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.
I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.
Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.
Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.
South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.
That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Separation of Church and State
Another case of a presidential candidate trying to use religion to get votes. See the details here.
Seems that Sen. Barack Obama is going to speak at Redemption Outreach Center, a non-denominational church, in Greenville this Sunday. In the past, similar actions have caused an outcry for "a wall of separation" between the Church and the State.
My reaction may surprise people on both sides. First, I think each candidate is guaranteed the right to speak about his/her faith (or not to speak as they desire). I personally hope each one explains his/her faith position and how it will impact their decisions should they win the White House. Maybe the answer is it won't affect them, that's ok too. At least I'll know where they say they stand.
I would like to go hear the Senator speak. I heard his speech at the Democratic National Convention and was impressed. I realized then that this was a Senator to watch. While I disagree with most of his positions, I think he is an excellent speaker and he brings a lot of good thinking to the floor.
It's unlikely that I will be able to hear him, I have commitments at my own church this weekend. It's not clear what time he will be speaking, so it's still possible.
Seems that Sen. Barack Obama is going to speak at Redemption Outreach Center, a non-denominational church, in Greenville this Sunday. In the past, similar actions have caused an outcry for "a wall of separation" between the Church and the State.
My reaction may surprise people on both sides. First, I think each candidate is guaranteed the right to speak about his/her faith (or not to speak as they desire). I personally hope each one explains his/her faith position and how it will impact their decisions should they win the White House. Maybe the answer is it won't affect them, that's ok too. At least I'll know where they say they stand.
I would like to go hear the Senator speak. I heard his speech at the Democratic National Convention and was impressed. I realized then that this was a Senator to watch. While I disagree with most of his positions, I think he is an excellent speaker and he brings a lot of good thinking to the floor.
It's unlikely that I will be able to hear him, I have commitments at my own church this weekend. It's not clear what time he will be speaking, so it's still possible.
Monday, August 13, 2007
NPR is not known as the most conservative radio station in the US. That's why I wanted to reference this program titled "Cautious Optimism on Behalf of the Iraq Surge". You can listen to it here.
I heard other references to writer Kenneth Pollack's op-ed in The New York Times, titled "A War We Might Just Win." (bytheyway, he had trouble with the word "win"). Pollack spoke out against the war early on, but in his editorial, he argues that U.S. troops are finally making progress in Iraq.
If you don't want to listen online, you can read some of his comments in an article titled "Pollack: ‘Surge’ Producing Real Progress in Iraq" at this webite.
Interesting reading...
I heard other references to writer Kenneth Pollack's op-ed in The New York Times, titled "A War We Might Just Win." (bytheyway, he had trouble with the word "win"). Pollack spoke out against the war early on, but in his editorial, he argues that U.S. troops are finally making progress in Iraq.
If you don't want to listen online, you can read some of his comments in an article titled "Pollack: ‘Surge’ Producing Real Progress in Iraq" at this webite.
Interesting reading...
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Great post in another blog
One of my sometimes-readers had a humorous post that I loved. I hope you'll love it too.
Look at his blog here.
I intentionally pointed to his whole blog, not just the post that got my attention. Look for "The Love that Dare Not Speak its Name..." it's hilarious (note that he says it's a parody).
The post after that (or before that depending on how you look at it) is done in respect for equal time.
Look at his blog here.
I intentionally pointed to his whole blog, not just the post that got my attention. Look for "The Love that Dare Not Speak its Name..." it's hilarious (note that he says it's a parody).
The post after that (or before that depending on how you look at it) is done in respect for equal time.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Call to treason
If you like Tom Clancy and just don't have the time to read one of hus 600+ page books, but can handle 400 pages, this Op-Center book is a good read.
If you are into politics and you've ever wondered how much change politics can implement, or how much government agencies should carry out political changes, you should read this.
If you're concerned about Homeland security, CIA involvement in politics, etc, you should read this.
In all cases, remember that it's fiction.
Tom Clancy's Op-Center: Call to Treason is a good read. As with all of the Op-Center books, this is not real Clancy, but it's close. Clancy sketches an outline, passes it to some "junior" writers and then reviews it. As with other Op-Centers, this book is exciting.
The characters in this book are passed along from the other Op-Center books. If you've read other Op-Center books, you'll know them and have ideas about them. But if you haven't read those, don't worry, the book can be enjoyed without any other knowledge. This book may encourage you to read all of them (they're always on my list, for lighter reading).
In the book, Op-Center faces budget cuts. The organization is down-sized and one of the guys goes to work for a new political party. The new political party is aiming to win the presidency and change things. First on the agenda are immigration and trade.
But some folks related to the new party have a habit of getting killed (as with most of Clancy's stuff, killed in a spectacular way).
Trying to figure out who the good guys are and who are the bad guys is intriguing. I had trouble deciding if the head of the party was good or bad. And also for the guys below him
One question that was raised was how far is too far to go to stop a bad politician? If you didn't like one of the political candidates, and you thought he/she might win, to what lengths would you go to stop him/her? The book doesn't try to answer that (it's just entertainment, not ethics), but you should think about it.
Overall, a very good read.
If you are into politics and you've ever wondered how much change politics can implement, or how much government agencies should carry out political changes, you should read this.
If you're concerned about Homeland security, CIA involvement in politics, etc, you should read this.
In all cases, remember that it's fiction.
Tom Clancy's Op-Center: Call to Treason is a good read. As with all of the Op-Center books, this is not real Clancy, but it's close. Clancy sketches an outline, passes it to some "junior" writers and then reviews it. As with other Op-Centers, this book is exciting.
The characters in this book are passed along from the other Op-Center books. If you've read other Op-Center books, you'll know them and have ideas about them. But if you haven't read those, don't worry, the book can be enjoyed without any other knowledge. This book may encourage you to read all of them (they're always on my list, for lighter reading).
In the book, Op-Center faces budget cuts. The organization is down-sized and one of the guys goes to work for a new political party. The new political party is aiming to win the presidency and change things. First on the agenda are immigration and trade.
But some folks related to the new party have a habit of getting killed (as with most of Clancy's stuff, killed in a spectacular way).
Trying to figure out who the good guys are and who are the bad guys is intriguing. I had trouble deciding if the head of the party was good or bad. And also for the guys below him
One question that was raised was how far is too far to go to stop a bad politician? If you didn't like one of the political candidates, and you thought he/she might win, to what lengths would you go to stop him/her? The book doesn't try to answer that (it's just entertainment, not ethics), but you should think about it.
Overall, a very good read.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The Senator from North Carolina
Interesting article at Economist.com on Sen. Edwards and his run for the presidency. It has something for everyone, the anti-Edwards camp can point and say "see, I told you" and the pro-Edwards camp can do the same.
Most interesting to me was the emphasis on the detail the Edwards campaign has given on it's plans. I applaud the Senator from NC for being forthright. I do not agree with his plans, but at least he states them. And the short description provided in this article makes me want to learn more about the details.
Most interesting to me was the emphasis on the detail the Edwards campaign has given on it's plans. I applaud the Senator from NC for being forthright. I do not agree with his plans, but at least he states them. And the short description provided in this article makes me want to learn more about the details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)