More Than 200 D.C. Teachers Fired! Progress?

The Washington Post's 'DC Schools Insider' reports the following:

The District fired 206 teachers for poor performance Friday, the second year in a row it has dismissed significant numbers of educators for sub-par work in the classroom. Those fired amount to 5 percent of the 4,100 teachers in the city school system.

They were dismissed for poor scores on the evaluation system known as IMPACT, which grades teachers on five 30-minute classroom observations and their compliance with nine broad standards. These include ability to express course content clearly, teach students with differing skill levels and manage time effectively. For some teachers, half of their appraisal is contingent on whether students meet predicted growth targets on standardized tests.

The evaluation system, one of the nation’s most rigorous and closely watched, is a legacy of Michelle A. Rhee’s tenure as city schools chancellor. Rhee, who resigned in October, was succeeded by her deputy, Kaya Henderson.

Of the 206 fired, officials said 65 were rated ineffective this year and 141 were judged minimally effective for the second consecutive year. Others were let go for licensure problems or other issues.

Four teachers who were rated minimally effective two years in a row received waivers from Henderson, enabling them to continue to teach in the city, based on the recommendation of principals who said they still had potential for improvement.

Another 663 teachers (16 percent) were rated highly effective, making them eligible for performance bonuses of up to $25,000. The vast majority were rated effective.

Last year, IMPACT’s first in operation, 75 teachers were let go for poor scores.

A couple things to point out. First, the highly effective teachers got bonuses. Second, Michelle Rhee implemented this system and it is moving forward as a success, even though she was run out of town by the union. Third, firing 5% is merely a good start- based on my own observations, I think 20% of teachers deserve to be fired and another 20% put on probation. Lastly, the majority of teachers fired were all given a second chance and still could not improve their performance even knowing that it would lead to their dismissal, indicating that these teachers would likely never get it even if they taught for many years.

A lot of money goes into education and some it finds its way to teachers, so it is good to see that at least somewhere teachers are being evaluated and students are being rewarded with better teachers.

Picture: The Obamacare Effect on Employment

Tina Korbe at HotAir explains the picture perfectly:

A new report out yesterday from The Heritage Foundation shows private sector job creation dropped dramatically almost immediately after President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) into law.

From the recession’s low point in January 2009 until April 2010, when Obamacare went into effect, the private sector created about 67,600 jobs a month. After the president signed PPACA into law, that number slowed to a meager 6,400 jobs a month — a more than 90 percent decrease or less than one-tenth the previous rate.

As the report states, correlation cannot prove causation — but the change in course is statistically measurable and testing reveals a structural break between April and May of 2010. Moreover, small-business owners have said Obamacare is a deterrent to hiring. Take Scott Womack, the owner of 12 IHOP restaurants in Indiana and Ohio, as just one example. Before Obamacare became law, he had development plans in Ohio. Now, he’s worried he won’t be able to carry out his original plans unless Obamacare is repealed. Those restaurants he planned to open would provide jobs not only for his future employees, but also for everyone involved in the construction of the restaurant buildings themselves.

As the Heritage report explains, Obamacare discourages hiring in three important ways:
Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty; Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise—they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult.

Democrats once touted that Obamacare would create jobs, but the data underscore the reality that that’s not true for the private sector. The only jobs Obamacare created were within the new agencies and layers of bureaucracy the law added to the federal government.

The Heritage report recommends repeal — and comes as a welcome reminder that the health care law can’t be ignored as the president and Congress attempt to address the debt and deficit or as the nation attempts to right the still-struggling economy. Nor can it be ignored in the upcoming presidential election. Likely U.S. voters have said jobs and the economy are their No. 1 issue. That means the repeal of Obamacare should be a top priority, too.

A Video of Boobies and Kittens Will Pick You Up

The debt ceiling stuff got you down? I know what will cheer you up- kittens. Here is a video of kittens:

H/T Curmudgeon

Latest EPA Rules to Cost 1.4 Million Jobs and a 12% Increase in Utility Bills

The good thing about having a record is being able to run on it, and I have a track record of posts on my blog that make Obama pretty jealous. In November of 2008 I pointed to an interview that Obama gave where he said that as part of his 'green energy' policies he intended to use the power of the federal government to bankrupt all coal producers in the United States. As I quite accurately wrote:

Obama is telling anyone that uses any energy at all that he intends to drive up the price of it. Combine this with his anti-drilling stances for oil, and get used to an economy that is starved for energy- high inflation, low growth, unemployment, and bad times.

This recession is not 'Bush's fault'- it is the result of government policies that Obama put in place that have led to a rise in prices for energy, and when it becomes more expensive to produce energy, the result is as predicted. As I wrote in Democrats Energy Policies Continue their Assault on Wealth and Jobs:

Our economy is struggling for a reason- Democrats and their policies are crushing human liberty and freedom, attacking wealth and wealth creation, freezing in social and economic structures, limiting mobility and change, and disincentivizing economic growth. Their policies are quite clear- these energy policies are a great example of how Democrats are increasing 'safety' or 'environmental' regulations that will drive US companies under, kill jobs, and drive business to other nations which have lower standards (thereby causing more harm to people or the environment), resulting in a net loss for society and America. Similar policies are found in healthcare, defense, education, etc.

This is not just fun and games people- these are real policies being put in place by real people that are having real job-killing and wealth-destroying effects. Democrats might want to run next election by churning out negative attacks and finding the one bad thing that their opponent did in the past, but that's just a side-show to distract you from the real results of their policies.

And the energy policies of the Democrats in the House, Senate, and Presidency are bad policies. They are not resulting in any sort of 'safer' environment. The man-made caused global warming that was going to destroy the world in the near future has been proven to be an utter myth promoted by corrupt scientists and 'green energy' producers who both live on kick-backs from the government. And it appears that under Obama and the Democrats administration, oil spills and mining disasters are getting more common and having worse effects. This isn't a shock- being safe is more about kicking back money to the right people now and much less about everyone following the law. And there attempts to kill coal production and mining in the United States just means that an unsupervised and unregulated communist China will produce and mine for more coal, doing far more damage to the environment than if it was done in the United States.

And the negatives of the energy policies of the Democrats in the House, Senate, and Presidency are becoming more obvious. The latest example of their bad policies is the latest rules that the EPA has put out on 'pollution' and energy production. These rules are draconian in nature and by design are supposed to be as unfriendly to energy and business as possible- the exact opposite of flexible and smart policies that allow businesses to thrive in a creative and business-friendly environment.

These new EPA rules are designed to choke job creation, especially in rural areas and states that produce coal, but these states don't vote Democrat and don't give the Democrats lots of wealth, so they think it is okay to hammer those states and punish them for their sense of liberty and freedom and equality.

These new EPA policies are also designed to ensure that consumers are stricken with higher utility bills. Oh, your Al Gores and John Kerry's and John Edwards and Barack Obama's will be able to pay those higher utility bills, but the middle class will be hard hit by these policies and driven into poverty and become a serf to the government system.

Coal plants will soon be forced to install new scrubber equipment that provides marginal improvement in air quality at tremendous expense. Producers of this new scrubber equipment will benefit and thousands of unionized bureaucrats who will be hired to ensure that these new standards are met will benefit, but the quality of air will see little improvement and the costs associated with installing and running these new energy-eating scrubbers will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher costs, or the company will absorb the costs by delaying investments in improvements in technology or safety, or the company will be forced to become more efficient by laying off many workers and employing more automation (they'll also save money by laying off workers because they won't have to pay the ever increasing costs of employing people that Obama and the Democrats are piling on). Or the company will go out of business.

The Washington Post reports that electric bills will jump 12 percent nationally by 2016 to comply with these new policies that the Democrats are putting in place, with residents in areas such as Kentucky and Tennessee seeing a 24 percent increase in their utility bills. These policies are project to eliminate 1.4 million jobs, and those people will no longer be paying taxes any more and will now be sucking down government benefits, all thanks to these policies pushed by Democratic bureaucrats employed by a Democratic President supervised by Democrats in the House and the Senate and supported by Democratic unions and a Democratic media. They are responsible for these bad policies- these aren't Republican or conservative or Bush or tea-party policies that are killing jobs and destroying the middle-class- they are Democratic policies.

When a party pushes for policies that achieve little good at the cost of a great number of negatives, it doesn't matter how much spinning they do and it really doesn't matter how good or bad the individual candidates are who they are running against- that party needs to be thrown out of power until they learn just how much damage their policies do to the life, liberty, and property of the great people of the United States of America.

The Start of a Discussion on Teacher Evaluations

Teachers, like other employees in every other company everywhere, need to be evaluated, and the current process of evaluation is broken. By way of example, here are the results of some of my evaluations, and keep in mind that I work in a good school district with a pretty good administration.

My first year of teaching, even though by the end of my first year I was teaching 5 different classes and 3 of them Honor or AP level and my students test scores showed improvement over the previous years, I received a mixed evaluation in the only time I was evaluated because the vice-principal said that I always looked worn down and was always in a rush. My second year teaching, even though the average scores of my students on the AP were a dramatic improvement over the teacher who taught the class in previous years and even though I was on several important committees and running several clubs, a couple of which I wasn't paid for, my review as again mixed, as my vice-principal felt that my room didn't have enough color and posters in it. It wasn't until my third year teaching that I actually had a vice-principal who stopped in my room more than the one or two times they were contractually obligated to, and during our conversations this person actually referred to data and common assessments and such, and under that measure, I received high evaluations across the board. In recent years, I don't think I've really been evaluated at all.

Teachers need to be evaluated better than this. We are professionals and should be provided with regular feedback so that we can continue to grow and improve our teaching. Every year I go through my numbers on common assessments and AP exams and identify where I am weak and where I can improve, but I do this in isolation with no encouragement or recognition and little help from those who may provide me with additional help and resources that I may need. Evaluations can provide schools with information that they need when making hiring or firing or compensation or placement decisions. And evaluations can help focus and direct teachers into producing results that are measurable and concrete- teachers can no longer simply measure one another based on height but instead should measure one another based on how high their students go.

Evaluations should all meet certain central guidelines. They should be conducted annually, they should be based on clear and rigorous expectations, they should be based on multiple measures, they should rate teachers multiple ways, should provide feedback to teachers, and should be used to make significant decisions in the education world.

One guide that I found that does a good job of discussing teacher evaluations and dispelling a lot of the fear and myths that surround them was guide put out by the New Teacher Project called Teacher Evaluation 2.0. I encourage anyone who is interested in learning more about teacher evaluations to read this short guide and ponder it- we need to move forward with better evaluations for teachers and this guide helps.

Higher Minimum Wage Laws Have Resulted in Higher Unemployment Rates?

One of the most astounding things that I let slip to my students is that I believe that minimum wage causes higher unemployment. They usually just shrug that off as some sort of crazy thing that I must be joking about- in fact, if you ever utter in usual society a statement similar to that you'll get the same sort of looks. After all, how in the world could raising the cost to hire employees ever lead to less employees being hired?

It's actually a fairly simple concept though. If you have a job that is low-skill, such as a stock boy or sales staff in the mall or something, they likely bring in little revenue themselves. I mean, you need people stocking and straightening shelves and you need sales staff in malls and in big box stores, but each one individually will bring you such little additional revenue that you have to be careful how many you hire as a business.

Let's say you run a store in the mall, and you budget $50/hour for 'sales staff'- you know, people who can greet people as they come in the door, fold clothes, help out customers, look good in their clothes and thereby encourage others to buy them, etc. If you pay each one $5/hour, you could hire 10 sales staff and gain your store a reputation for great customer service and help and presentation. These employees have few real skills- in fact, since they are willing to work for that pay, it is likely they are the group with the fewest job skills- and so their pay is in line with what they provide. They will gain experience and soon command a higher salary. If no one is willing to work for $5/hour, then you'll have to offer more money, until you attract someone who willingly accepts employment at the amount you offer.

But let's say some do-gooder government bureaucrat making 100K/year comes along and thinks that it isn't fair that you are only getting paid the amount that you and your employer both voluntarily agreed upon. This person decides that everyone should now be paid $10/hour, and then pats themselves on the back for making the lives of all of these low-skilled laborers better. The store owner now has a choice- increase the amount of money that they budget for 'sales staff' or hire less people. If they just let their store slip a little in looks, have less staff available for help, automate some of the things that people did better, and not have friendly greeters, business will suffer- but so will the competitors too, so the only real loser will be all of society. If they instead just keep their 'sales staff' budget at $50 and simply cut back the number of employees who work, those employees will have to work harder and there will be more demands on their skill level, but that's okay- there are plenty of people willing to work for $10 hour. Our good businessman now fires all 10 people, re-hires 5 new people with more skills (probably older people with degrees in useless subjects), and moves forward with a store that is lesser than before.

The end result of raising minimum wage in this theoretical exercise will result in higher unemployment, especially in those groups with lower skill levels, and stores that are less appealing.

I don't have any hard data on whether stores are less appealing today than they were back in the old days- myself, I think that it is, with more 'self-checkout' operations, less helpful staff, less personal service, and stores that are less straight and clean.

I do have hard data on unemployment rates, especially unemployment rates with those with lower skill levels. The overall unemployment rate in the United States is now 9.2%, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal article:

Only 24% of teens, one in four, have jobs, compared to 42% as recently as the summer of 2001. The nearby chart chronicles the teen employment percentage over time, including the notable plunge in the last decade. So instead of learning valuable job skills—getting out of bed before noon, showing up on time, being courteous to customers, operating a cash register or fork lift—millions of kids will spend the summer playing computer games or hanging out.

But Congress has also contributed by passing one of the most ill-timed minimum wage increases in history. One of the first acts of the gone-but-not-forgotten Nancy Pelosi ascendancy was to raise the minimum wage in stages to $7.25 an hour in 2009 from $5.15 in 2007. Even liberals ought to understand that raising the cost of hiring the young and unskilled while employers are slashing payrolls is loopy economics.

So, there you go- raising the minimum wage did result in higher unemployment, especially in low-skill job areas. Nancy Pelosi and the liberals in Congress who voted to increase the minimum wage might be shocked to learn that their policies have led to a black teen jobless rate of 41.6%, but I'm not. A higher minimum wage forced on businesses by government equals higher unemployment.

H/T Conservative Hideout.

Must Read Interview by IBD with Home Depot Founder Bernie Marcus!

Just read this interview that Investors Business Daily had with Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, one of the largest home improvement stores in the nation and employer of lots of people. The interview is stunning because Marcus says what we're all seeing- that the biggest barrier to wealth creation is now the government, that Obama and the Democrats are contributing to the problem, that the White House doesn't even know how to talk to wealth creators, and that the reason why no one is speaking out is that they are all afraid of the powerful wealth destroying government targeting them if they don't toe the line in this now tin-pot banana-republic. Well said Mr. Marcus, and great interview IBD!

IBD: What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?

Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

IBD: President Obama has promised to streamline and eliminate regulations. What's your take?

Marcus: His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that's probably going end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.

IBD: Washington has been consumed with debt talks. Is this the right focus now?

Marcus: They are all tied together. If we don't lower spending and if we don't deal with paying down the debt, we are going to have to raise taxes. Even brain-dead economists understand that when you raise taxes, you cost jobs.

IBD: If you could sit down with Obama and talk to him about job creation, what would you say?

Marcus: I'm not sure Obama would understand anything that I'd say, because he's never really worked a day outside the political or legal area. He doesn't know how to make a payroll, he doesn't understand the problems businesses face. I would try to explain that the plight of the businessman is very reactive to Washington. As Washington piles on regulations and mandates, the impact is tremendous. I don't think he's a bad guy. I just think he has no knowledge of this.

IBD: Why don't more businesses speak out?

Marcus: They are frightened to death — frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them. In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration.

IBD: What's your message to the business community?

Marcus: It's time to stand up and fight. These people in Washington are out there making your life difficult, and many of you won't survive. Why aren't you doing something about it? The free enterprise system made this country what it is today, and we've got to keep it alive. We are on the edge of the abyss.

We are the edge of the abyss, or perhaps already falling into it, but that only means that we have to fight even harder to return our nation to its founding principles which unleashed humanity in freedom and wealth.

My Pledge: To Vote Against Anyone Who Votes to Raise Debt Limit More Than $1 Trillion

For the record, I will vote in the primary against any Congressman or Senator or President who raises the debt ceiling more than $1 trillion. I'm a reasonable man- another trillion in debt should buy our nation another year, which should be enough time to get a better handle on the annual deficits and maybe the Democrats will even do their job and produce a budget of some kind.

But our nation can only escape collapse if it stops taking the wealth from citizens. The means that it can not raise taxes in any way, and it can no longer sell debt which only takes credit and wealth out of our system.

Any 'future spending cuts' or 'fantasy entitlement reforms' mean very little to me, because I don't trust Democrats or Republicans to actually implement them (Democrats because when they promise these things they are lying and do not intend to do anything of the sort, and Republicans because when they promise these things they lack the strength to deliver on them). The only thing that matters is raising the debt limit, and I'm okay with that being raised $1 trillion dollars.

A balanced budget amendment would have been neat to have, but again, the only thing that matters to me is that our debt to GDP ratio does not go about 100%, and the only way that happens if it the debt limit stays under $15.5 trillion, which is a raise of $1 trillion dollars.

Of course, in the general election, I'll have to consider other factors, such as whether a RINO is better than a communist, but in the primary, I pledge to vote against Congressman Peters, Senator Levin, Sentator Stabenow, and President Obama if any of them vote to raise the debt limit more than $1 trillion.

The rest of you can do whatever the heck you want, but this is the pledge that I am making and will hold myself to.

I'm Officially No Longer Planning on Running for US Senate

No offense to those candidates who had previously announced that they were running for the United States Senate seat that is up in 2012, but since none of those candidates really got me too excited or had a big enough name, I was playing around in my mind with running myself for that Senate seat. The 2012 election is going to be more about the President than it is who will be Senator, and although Debbie Stabenow (who currently ineptly fills the office) is a good fundraiser she is good at little else and is able to be beaten if someone lays some solid body blows on her record and character- and I could do those things. I don't have very much money and have few connections to people who do, but once you're a candidate, those things appear, and then it's just about hammering away at the weak candidate that Stabenow is. Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner John McCulloch, activist Peter Konetchy, and former judge Randy Hekman are the only candidates currently running against her, and I've got as good as a shot as any of them, so I was playing around with it in my mind. Now, thankfully, I don't have to.

Former U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra is expected to jump back into the race against Stabenow as early as today, and he represents exactly the kind of big-name, high-experience, solid candidate that I have been looking and waiting for to get into it against Stabenow. Hoekstra retired this year after serving nine terms in the federal House of Representatives, after his run for Governor was unsuccessful. While in the House, he rose to Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, where he left his mark on key anti-terrorism legislation. Before entering politics, he served as a vice president of marketing at Herman Miller, the office furniture maker headquartered near Grand Rapids. Since leaving Capitol Hill, Hoekstra's worked for Dickstein Shapiro, a top law firm based in Washington, where he has continued to keep in touch with all the issues facing our nation.

Hoekstra is the kind of candidate that we need in the Senate. As I pointed out in my post Graph: Public Debt Over Time, Color-Coded by Party in Power, although the President is important in our nation, having a solid and conservative Congress will go farther to restoring the sanity to our nations finances, so it is good to finally have a solid candidate running for the US Senate against the weak and corrupt Stabenow, who has grown fat on taxpayers for too many years. My post Graph: U.S. Foreclosure Rates, Colored-Coded by Party in Power also indicated that the worse thing for our nation as far as foreclosures go was having a Democratic Congress, and knocking out Stabenow, who represents the farthest extremes of progressives as a Democrat in Congress, and replacing her with Hoekstra, who represents a solid Republican vote, will work to stop the foreclosure crisis that is hammering our nation.

Congressman Pete Hoekstra was honestly my choice for Governor of Michigan last time around- in my post Recommendations for Michigan's Primary Election in 2010 you can read about my struggles with deciding on a candidate, and after much research and analysis I decided that Hoekstra was the best- even better than Rick Snyder, who went on to become Governor. I decided that Hoekstra was a solid candidate, someone who people spoke well of, he had good family values, a solid background in business and government, and he is a good conservative who is friendly to the Tea Party movement (see post Tea Party Express Stop Southeast Michigan: My Report, with Pictures and Video).

And Senator Stabenow is not a good Senator for the people of Michigan. As I wrote in my post 10 Good Reasons Why Senator Stabenow Should Be Re-Elected, the joke was that there was no good reason for her to be re-elected-

She does a poor job advocating for Michigan, she is consistently ranked as one of the weakest politicians in Congress, and according to the National Journal Group she is the most liberal member of the Senate and thus more liberal than any of her constituents in this fine moderate state of Michigan. If she were a run-of-the-mill liberal who did a good job helping constituents and was chair of a powerful committee than I could see her winning re-election, but that describes Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), not her.

Stabmenow is going to be a tough battle in the election, that's for sure. As I wrote in Senator Stabenow at DEC Event Details What a Political Economy Looks Like:

Don’t get me wrong- she is going to be a formidable candidate this election, because her campaign is going to be awash in kickbacks from companies who have benefited from her abilities to distribute favors to politically connected companies, and because unlike the last time she ran, this time she has experience and knowledge on the issues and has passed some legislation.

Whoever the Republicans choose to run against her- whether it is indeed Terri Lynn Land or whether it is Pete Hoekstra- I really hope that they realize that to campaign against Stabenow will require a lot of hard work and determination. She is going to be heavily funded by groups that owe her for all of her hard work redirecting taxpayer money to big businesses that she likes, and she is going to have a strong record to run on of passing policies that look good. It is going to require a lot of educating of voters and connecting with voters to get them to see that her policies are bad for America and bad for Michigan and that she should not be elected to office again.

But I think that Hoekstra is the kind of candidate who can and should defeat her attempt to hold on to her ill-bought seat. He has managed to weather tough and dirty attacks on him before- remember last year when President Barack Obama went into his home district to cut the ribbon of another government-financed battery plant and took the occasion to make a bunch of snide underhanded comments directed at Hoekstra as he stood uncomfortably there? I wrote about it in my post Republican Congressman Visits White House and Insults Democrat President in Front of Friends (which is a joke, because the exact opposite occurred). Hoekstra took in in stride, calmly and dryly moved past it, and didn't lower himself to the levels that the partisan joker who inhabits our White House did. If Hoekstra can navigate situations like that, I have high hopes for him navigating through the negative and mean and bitter and partisan attacks that an incompetent liberal who is out of touch with voters like Stabenow will unleash in her desperate attempt to clutch to power.

So, thank you Congressman Hoekstra, for entering the race for US Senate in 2012, because now I no longer have to think about running for this seat myself. Good luck and you can count on me for anything you need!

Graph: Public Debt Over Time, Color-Coded by Party in Power

Not all national debt is the same. The total or gross national debt is the sum of the "debt held by the public" and "intragovernmental" debt. As of February 2011, the "debt held by the public" was $9.6 trillion and the "intragovernmental debt" was $4.6 trillion, for a total of $14.2 trillion.

Intragovernmental debt represents U.S. Treasury securities that are bought and held in accounts which are administered by the United States Government, and includes such accounts as the 'Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund', 'Federal Employee Retirement Funds,' 'Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund,' and many others. The debt held by the public represents all federal securities held by institutions or individuals outside the United States Government, such as foreign nations that buy US securities, individuals who buy US securities, or banks/institutions that buy US securities. The debt held by the public represents in many ways a better measure of the amount of debt that the United States government owes to the outside world, and so let's take a look at the recent growth of this debt:

This picture shows the growth of the amount of debt held by the public from 1971 to today, with projections into the future. The source of the original graph was the Congressional Budget Office. I then went ahead and color-coded the graph to represent which political parties were in control of our national government at the time.

The conclusion that I have reached is that the party that controls Congress matters a lot more than the party that controls the Presidency in determining the amount of debt that our nation owes to the public. Under Republican Presidents, the debt went up and down by small amounts. Under Democrat Presidents, the debt decreased by a large amount and exploded by a large amount. But when you look at the party in control of Congress you see the largest changes in the amount of debt. Democrat control of Congress has been responsible for the most increases in the debt, while Republican control of Congress was responsible for the largest decreases and stability.

Based on this data, I suggest that next election you pay more attention to who you are voting for in Congress- we need to make sure that Republicans are in control of both the House and Senate by strong and sizable majorities. It is of lesser importance who controls the White House, although I would venture to guess that a Clinton Democrat is different enough than a radical Obama Democrat that in this upcoming election it does matter who is President, and it needs to be anyone other than Obama (a moderate Democrat or a Republican).

Codevilla Gets to the Heart of Understanding Obama?

This is my second post on Codevilla, and I am going to have to make it a point to read more of what he writes because it is becoming clear that The Mackinac Center recently said, Angelo M. Codevilla might be our era's Thomas Paine. Like Paine, Codevilla's works make a lot of things that people intuitively know and feel now clear and boldly stated in plain English. His articles are body-blows to the lies of the world- they give voice and focus to the reality of the situation. He names the unnamed.

His earlier article was about America's Ruling Class, a powerful theme that went a long way towards explaining what is happening in our nation. My post on it was Recommended Read: Codevilla's 'America's Ruling Class', and in it I could do no more than point readers toward his brilliant essay America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution that was recently in the American Spectator. If you haven't read it yet, please do so at some point.

Today, via Belmont Club, I came across another of Codevilla's essay's, and it also blew my socks off. Angelo de Codevilla recently reviewed the six accounts of Barack Obama’s life for the Claremont Review of Books, and he ends up with the conclusion that Obama was always something other than what he portrayed himself to be. What that is, in Codevilla’s summary, is this:

In sum, Barack Obama grew intertwined with the narrow, self-referential left side of the American Left. They helped one another believe they had come up the hard way, as underprivileged but brilliant, square-jawed tribunes of the common man. Their common problem, however, is that their agendas are antagonistic to people unlike themselves, and that they cannot keep from showing their contempt for the common folk in whose name they would ride to power.

Since the days of Karl Marx’s First International a century and a half ago, this very human opposition between socialist theory (egalitarianism) and socialist reality (oligarchic oppression) has bedeviled the Left. Marx laid the problem bare in his “Critique of the Gotha Program” (1875). Lenin dealt with it honestly and brutally in What Is to Be Done? (1902)—the foundational document of Communism. By acknowledging that the Communist Party is not the common people’s representative, but rather its “vanguard,” Leninists were comfortable with a party responsible only to itself and to history, a party that openly demanded deference from the humans whose habits it forcibly reshaped. Communism’s undeniable horrors forced the New Left to disassociate itself from What Is to Be Done? and once again to pretend that its socialism was neither oligarchic nor coercive, that somehow it was on the side of ordinary folks. This is a much tougher sell in the 21st century than it was in the 19th. Contemporary socialists try to explain away the common man’s suspicion of them as harbingers of oligarchy, corruption, and coercion by resorting to jargon (e.g., “false consciousness” and “socio-economic anxiety”). But that is ever less convincing. This is why the movement argues so strenuously with itself about whether and how much it should dissimulate its agenda.

Which is one reason why it plays the “race card” and seizes on recruits like Barack Obama: because many black Americans’ ancestors were slaves, must not any black American be, ipso facto, unquestionably, a member and true representative of the downtrodden? And if a skeptic should argue that this or that black man is really a representative of old, white, nasty socialism, of the Corporate State, of upscale parasites who prey on working people, it is easy enough to re-focus the argument on the skeptic’s “racism.” If blacks inclined to play this role did not exist, the Socialist movement would have every incentive to invent them. And in a sense it tries to invent them, through the “black studies” programs that now divert so many young Americans from useful lives into partisan service.

Obama is as close as one could imagine to a made-to-order front man for contemporary, upscale, shy-about-itself, nouveau socialism. From his earliest age, he shaped his dreams about himself to act out a character wholly fictitious, namely a black American from a humble background who rose up out of brilliance and merit, and who yearns to draw all of America’s low-born (plus the rest of mankind) up through the same paths. But he is none of that. Equally imaginary is his vaunted understanding of and sympathy for foreign cultures. A typical multiculturalist, Obama speaks no language other than a peculiar version of English. His native language, loves, and hates are common to some of the most leftist elements of the current American ruling class.

That class knows about America only that it must be changed, and looks at the vast majority of Americans the way carpenters look at warped pieces of lumber. Barack Obama is neither more nor less than its product and agent.

Angelo Codevilla is the author of The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It and The Character of Nations: How Politics Makes and Breaks Prosperity, Family, and Civility.

Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2011: An Argument For HR 1738

Representative Dave Reichert (R-WA8) has recently sponsored an education bill (House Resolution 1738) that should be quickly passed with bi-partisan support- the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2011. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase deductions that teachers can make for certain elementary and secondary school teachers from $250 to $500, extend indefinitely this currently year-by-year deduction, and expand it to include professional development activities.

Republicans and Democrats talk often about 'helping teachers'- but the money that goes into the Department of Education gets trapped in Washington or by bureaucrats at the state levels and much of the 'help' never actually gets to the actual teachers. A better approach by Washington to 'helping teachers' would be to cut the size and budget of the Department of Education and to take half of those savings and transfer it to teachers in the form of tax deductions.

These tax deductions would reward those teachers who already spend money in their classroom- after all, teachers already spend out-of-pocket considerably more than $250 (sources- the NEA's 2003 report, Status of the American Public School Teacher, 2000-2001, found that teachers spent an average of $443 a year on classroom supplies, and The National School Supply and Equipment Association found that in 2005-2006, educators spent out of their own pockets an average of $826 for supplies and an additional $926 for instructional materials -- for a total of $1,752). By allowing more to be deducted, this may perhaps encourage more teachers to buy more supplied for their classrooms, especially if those teachers are not well-off or working in districts that can not afford to pay them a lot. And by expanding the tax credit, it may encourage teachers to seek out more professional development opportunities, knowing that these will be deducted from their tax bill.

The federal government allows small-business owners to deduct expenses, those who work for other companies to deduct expenses, and bureaucrats deduct costs all the time from their taxes, and so expanding the already existing teacher tax deduction would be in line with what is acceptable in other policy areas.

Some of you may be thinking- why should only teachers get this sort of tax break? You may be right and perhaps taxes should be cut for you too, but just because you want something too should not mean that you oppose tax cuts to teachers (unless you're just a small and spiteful person and can't stand to see anyone else get better if you're not too). You want tax cuts, this bill is tax cuts- don't be petty and jealous and oppose it just because those tax cuts don't go to you. I suppose you could oppose this bill because you want to see the government collect more from teachers in taxes, but that's got to be a small minority- not even liberal Democrats really could have as their objective to just take more out of teachers pockets. Or perhaps you're worried that this sort of thing will add to our deficit- if that's the case, just make in kind cuts from the Department of Education budget based on how much you think this sort of thing will cost, or even 2-for-1 cuts- HR 1738 will be better for real teachers in the end.

The federal government can play a role in improving education by encouraging teachers to spend more of their own money in their classroom and improve their skills through professional development, and HR 1738 does this.

Please contact your Congressperson and encourage them to co-sponsor this legislation and work to push it through the House Committee on Ways and Means, where it is currently stuck.

Currently cosponsored by Shelley Berkley [D-NV1], Doc Hastings [R-WA4], and Aaron Schock [R-IL18]- please thank these Congresspeople for cosponsoring this legislation.

Winnie the Pooh Movie Review

If you have young kids or are just a young kid at heart, you'll love the movie that just came out in the theaters called Winnie the Pooh. The beauty of Winnie the Pooh is that it is short (69 minutes) which is the perfect length for my little ones to sit down and not have their attention wander; it is sweet and old-fashioned which is a great change of pace from the modern day movies that are at times sour and filled with references to adult themes; it is creative and imaginative much like children are; and it is filled with the happy sense of irrelevant that I see all the time as my own children play.

Every week I read to my four children, and one of our favorite times is reading A.A. Milne's original stories of adventure and friendship- my kids enjoy the unique characters that live in the imagination of Christopher Robin- hyper Tigger, despondent Eeyore, blowhard Owl, Kanga and Roo, nervous Piglet, jumpy Rabbit, and above all Winnie the Pooh, a bear who is sweet and nice and who understands friendship and loyalty and the joy of a nice pot of honey.

My own kids play for hours using whatever they find in our house, mixing and matching toys of all kinds to make an adventure that is at times tough to follow- I listen in and play along sometimes and struggle, because the adventures don't seem at times to follow in a literal sense and there are sudden interludes of song and it almost seems at times if the plot has suddenly changed on me- and watching Winnie the Pooh felt like that and my kids loved it.

The rough plot is that Eeyore has lost his tail and the group has to help him find a new one, the first 20 minutes of the movie are giggle and laugh at loud fun, but it gets slow for a bit with the introduction of a new plot, that Christopher Robbins has been captured by a monster known as a Backsoon (spoiler alert: Owl misread the note about Robbins being back soon), but it ends with a sweet and fun ending that had my kids jumping and laughing about again.

My favorite scene was when Tigger wrestled the balloon- so funny. My kids favorite scenes included Pooh swimming in a honey pot, Eeyore with all the different kinds of tails, Piglet running from the 'monster' Backsoon, or Tigger and Eeyore singing about the monster Backsoon.

It is in the theaters right now- check it out. Rated G.

If you want to read your own Winnie the Pooh stories, follow this link here and make some memories with your children: The Complete Tales of Winnie-The-Pooh or Pooh Library original 4-volume set (Pooh Original Edition).

Democratic Party: Now a Party for Royalty?

President Barack Obama raised $86 million last quarter in fundraising- and over 40% of that was from bundlers. Twenty-seven big-donor bundlers each collected more than $500,000 in contributions- the list of these donors demonstrates that Obama finds most of his support with celebrities and the well-connected. Another 200 people scooped up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars each in contributions for the president, collectively amounting to at least $35 million, and these ranks are filled with lawyers and lobbyists.

You see, the Democrat Party has increasingly become a divided party- super rich politically connected elites who have already made their wealth, and those who they want to control. It is a party of elites who deliver goods to others and others who receive goods from elites- the modern day Democratic Party has become exactly the sort of thing that our nation rebelled against.

This probably explains why the 'Tea-Party' movement has exploded and is marked by symbols and discussions of our founding- the direction that the Democratic Party has lurched under Obama and Pelosi and the other liberal Democrats is a direction that goes directly against the traditional nature of our nation and attacks everything that our nation was born into.

The modern-day Democratic Party seeks to rule over us as lords and nobility- for our own good, we are told. But they are not lords and nobility- those don't exist in America- and so they need to take this following advice from Billy Hollis in his post Eat my peas? Screw you, Obama – I’m not a child for you to raise:

• We need to be responsible for our own retirement. We don’t need to be treated like children who don’t understand the value of money, can’t see the future, and don’t have the self-discipline to save.
• We need to be responsible for our own healthcare. We don’t need to be treated like children who must be told what to eat, when to exercise, and what treatment they are to get when they are sick, without any thought to how to pay for it.
• We need to be responsible for our own businesses. The vast majority of business owners are adult enough to know what safety precautions to take, and what accounting standards to use. The small minority that doesn't understand safety should have their butts sued off and lose their businesses when they are negligent. The tiny minority that commits accounting fraud should be put in prison.
• We need to be responsible for our property. That starts with allowing us to keep our own money, and spend it as we like. It also implies some stability that is not currently in evidence, so that we don’t lose huge sums in real estate and stock investments because of governmental incompetence and cronyism with the executives of large companies.
• We need to be more responsible for our own safety. Sure, there’s always a need for law enforcement, but it can’t be the first resort for personal safety. Any law enforcement that could do that would be indistinguishable from a police state. Therefore, we need the right to buy, possess, and use the weapons that provide that safety.
• We need to be responsible for raising our own children. We need to have more influence over their education, and we particularly need to stop wasting our time reversing the indoctrination they suffer at the hands of the educational bureaucracy.
• We need to be responsible for treating other people appropriately. If we are stupid or obnoxious in our treatment of others, we need to suffer social consequences, not legal ones.

America: Change Direction

It does not matter who you support- seriously, 'generic Republican' beats Obama now by 7% according to the latest polls- but it does matter that our nation changes direction. I'm shocked that the Democrats aren't running someone against Obama- if there is anyone from either party since LBJ that doesn't deserve another term of office, it's President Barack Obama, and even the Democrats should know this. Our nation needs a change. This is a good advertisement that the RNC put out- take a minute to watch it:

H/T TheBlogProf

EXCLUSIVE: Congressman Hunter Spills the Latest on the Debt Limit Debate

This is the sort of news that neither Fox nor memeorandum is reporting! I've been lucky the last couple days to corner both a Senator and a Congressman and get their thoughts regarding the debt limit- yesterday I wrote about what Senator Murkowski said (EXCLUSIVE: Senator Spills on the Latest on the Debt Limit)- today I'm going to pass on to you, my good readers, what Congressman Duncan Hunter (R, CA), told me today regarding the current debate about raising the debt ceiling.

According to Congressman Hunter, the situation looks grim. Cantor is pushing for $2 trillion in cuts and a corresponding increase in debt limit. The problem is that there are no real easy cuts to make- there is very little non-military discretionary spending in the budget and not enough to really close the gap, so any sort of real cuts will have to hit Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. “This is the budget today”, he said- the budget and purpose of the government has now simply become to redistribute wealth from those who work hard and produce wealth to those who don't. So in order to actually cut anything, you’d have to reform our entitlement programs. But the Democrats have drawn a line in the sand and refuse to do anything on the budget unless taxes are raised, and then after income taxes are raised, any entitlement reform will be 'in the future'- aka, passed on the future Congresses to really enact.

The biggest problem facing our nation is an utter lack of leadership in the office that is supposed to be providing the most leadership for our nation when it faces a crisis- the President. President Obama refused to released is a plan to Congress- something with numbers and words and written down that can be scored and marked up and analyzed. All Obama produces is rhetoric- in every meeting, he walks in with talking points and words and that's all. He has refused to actually take any sort of real stand or leadership on any issue facing our nation- the GOP keeps begging him to just release some sort of real hard numbers and something in writing, but he refuses because he thinks that if he takes any sort of positions on any issues it will damage him in the coming election.

“I really hope that after 2012 we will have an administration that will be more favorable towards moving legislation,” he said, pointing out also that the Democrats in the Senate have also completely abandoned any attempt to pass anything at all- Congressman Hunter says that “I don’t think the Senate is going to pass any budget on anything until after 2012”- he says that the reason why the Senate is refusing to even think about possibly considering passing any sort of budget is because it does not benefit them in any political sense- if the Democrats take any sort of stand on any important issue, they may be held accountable to voters and made to account on it.

So what is next, if we have a Democratic party that is refusing to take leadership and pass laws and face the real issues facing our nation. On this issue, sometime around August 1st to August 5th, the GOP- the party that controls 1/3 of the government and has controlled this institution for only a couple months- will have to step up and choose one of two options- agree to the Democrats plan, which, since they refuse to compromise will be basically lots of tax raises combined with empty promises to cut things in the future, or “hit rock bottom.”

“It is worth letting the market fluctuate for a short time if it means that our kids will have a market in the future,” Congressman Hunter said.

UPDATE: Thanks so much for linking to this story!

EXCLUSIVE: Senator Spills on the Latest on the Debt Limit

Today I got a chance to talk to Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican from Alaska, about the current controversy regarding the debt ceiling. Although the situation seems quite easy for me to figure out (see my post Trying to Make Sense of the Debt Limit Debate?), it apparently is still such a complicated subject that confounds all of our major policy-makers, especially President Barack Obama (Democrat).

According to Senator Murkowski, her recent meeting with President Obama "did not go well" and she is "not optimistic about a deal." Both sides recognize that we need to figure out how to deal with the debt limit- but the center of the debate is how. There is simply too much borrowing being done by our federal government, and to cover that we will need to borrow more- the question is how much spread out over how long- Obama wants $4 trillion more that he thinks will get him through another two years, the GOP wants to figure out how to borrow a lot less than that while making responsible cuts to bloated and inefficient programs.

"On August 3, money will come in- but not enough to meet our obligations," Senator Murkowski said. At that point, we'll need to prioritize where our money goes and begin making decisions regarding what is important and what is not. Democrats and Obama don't want to make these decisions- they are hard and require you to have values- and instead simply want to throw money at everyone without asking questions. As Senator Murkowski said "we have a lot of obligations," and real decisions have to be made regarding those obligations, including changing those obligations and deciding that perhaps we don't really need all of those 'stimulus' programs or subsidies for 'green energy.'

As a side note, I found Senator Murkowski to be a personable, passionate, knowledgeable, and pragmatic person- like many Tea Party and conservative and libertarians, I may disagree with her on issues and work to defeat her in the primary, but in the general and in our Senate she is a decent enough Senator.

Incidentally, she was vastly superior in almost every way to my own Senator, Senator Stabenow, who I felt was partisan, shallow, divisive, and heavily dependent on talking points for her knowledge on issues. Read my post Senator Stabenow at DEC Event Details What a Political Economy Looks Like for more on my thoughts on Senator Stabenow.

Did Sarah Palin Get a Boob Job? Latest Newsweek Cover Adds to Mystery?

The Washington Post begins a story on Sarah Palin's thoughts on the debt ceiling by discussing the latest picture of Sarah Palin in Newsweek this way:

As celebrity glamour shots go, Sarah Palin’s cover photo on this week’s Newsweek is danged good! The best-selling author and reality-TV star looks young and vibrant. Her devil-may-care countenance aided and abetted by the wind conspicuously blowing hair back. And while her outfit might be laid back, there’s no doubt she’s in total control.

The real question though is- are they real? That's right- let's all reduce a real women to her superficial characteristics and analyze her at the most superficial levels as possible- I mean, that's how the main stream media covered Obama right- reduced him to the color of his skin and whether he looked clean and did no further research into his background or qualifications.

This is sarcasm, of course- Sarah Palin is on the cover of Newsweek again because she is a person of consequence who, whether you agree with her or not, is one of the most dynamic political figures in America today. She reminds me a little of Andrew Jackson, who burst on the scene as a back country fighter who scared the established political classes because he spoke the truth and didn't hold back. Now, I'm not saying she'll be as great as he was- I'm just saying that any analysis of her policies and ideas about government should not begin with any comments about whether or not she looks pretty.

Come on MSM- try to dig a little deeper into the issues and policies and backgrounds of the major political issues and characters of the day and perhaps people might read your stories.

For the record, Sidra said it best in Seinfeld.

Trying to Make Sense of the Debt Limit Debate?

I'm confused.

The United States Congress, under both Republican and Democrat, has from time to time established a 'debt limit' in order to force our government to recognize that there is a limit on the total amount of debt that our nation can amass. The purpose of this debt limit or debt ceiling was to put a limit on how much the government could spend in deficit spending once the limit was reached- in other words, our nation brings in $2 trillion in taxes and if the debt ceiling is hit, it should spend that $2 trillion and not more. Once long ago (15 years ago), our nation was able to do that- once, under different times (5 years ago) our nation only added $500 billion or so a year to our debt and so the debt limit looked a long way away. But that was different times, before the utter madness and insanity that is the Obama administration teamed with a liberal Democrat Congress.

We all know the story now- Obama has added more to the nation debt in the first term of his administration that almost every administration in the history of the United States combined (yes, even more than two term Presidents Reagan+Bush). His budgets (when they aren't being laughed off the table) project the utter bankruptcy of the United States in the near future, especially when massive new entitlements like Obamacare kick in and explode the cost of healthcare and dramatically increase unemployment while attacking the life, liberty, and property of the citizens of our nation.

In their infinite wisdom Congress has foreseen a time like this, and so the debt limit was put in place to stop the madness of King Obama. The limit has been reached- it is now time to stop spending money and live within the government's massively ample means. Or, if this means the utter collapse of America, then kick up the debt limit another trillion in return for a budget that adds a massively mind-blowing $500 billion in debt this year (we're still dealing with this year's budget since the Democrats in the House and Senate passed no budget last year when they controlled those institutions, and the Senate Democrats aren't even pretending any more to propose a budget for the current year even though they control that institution), $500 billion in debt next year, and a balanced budget given to the next President.  I'm okay with that kind of a deal, signed on by both parties.

Here is where the confusion strikes- neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are negotiating for this objective or anything like it.

President Barack Hussein Obama (Democrat, Illinois) and the Democrats in the House (Screechen' Pelosi) and the Senate (which they still have control over because idiots continue to vote Democrat), as far as I can gather, wants the debt limit raised $4 trillion (which will get him into his hypothetical next administration) in return for unspecified cuts of whatever amount that will occur long after he has left. The only concrete proposal that I have seen from him is a measly $200 billion cut for Medicare, a Medicare program that he cut $500 billion out of already as part of making his Obamacare screw-over laughingly 'budget neutral'. Other than that, there big solution is more taxes- they feel that they can take money from people who are currently earning it fairly based on their hard work and effort and innovation because there are fewer of these people and that's what tyrannies do- beat up on the few to give meager handouts to the many. They are proposing higher taxes on those who make over $250K year- not those who are already wealthy or who inherited their money, because those people are the super-rich hereditary elite who are increasingly ruling over us- but rather that those who are earning and making their money and working their way up are beat down, punished, discouraged, and driven back downwards to the bottom, creating a permanent class of rich who have and poor who have not.

Both Democrats and Republicans also have been talking about cutting 'tax loopholes' or cutting 'spending through the tax code'. Don't fall for this kind of stuff- the sorts of things that the government considers 'spending through the tax code' are tax credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, deferrals, and preferential rates. Examples of 'tax expenditures' include the mortgage tax deduction, the 'Bush' tax cuts, the 'Obama' tax cuts, having pensions be tax exempt, dividend taxes, exclusion of taxes your employer pays on health care, tax credits for children, the elimination of the 'marriage penalty, and many more. Cutting this sort of spending will raise taxes on families, employers, home owners, retirees, and many more, in order to transfer wealth to low income earners and other politically favorable groups who will be exempt from such devastating automatic tax increases.

The Republicans also talk about wanting the government to cut spending back to the bloated, inefficient, and massive levels that it existed under big-government Republican President George W. Bush, combined with 'reforms' that are meaningless mishmash of poor words thrown at a wall doing nothing for the future.

It is simple- the limit has been reached, government should only spend the unbelievable amount that it takes in, and figure out something for next year. I don't understand why everyone else is so confused about this issue.

Welcome South Sudan to the Family of Nations!

Today (July 9) a new nation was created, the nation of South Sudan. South Sudan became an independent state on 9 July 2011 at midnight (00:00) local time following a referendum held in January 2011 in which nearly 99% of voters opted for separation from the rest of Sudan. It has been an Autonomous Region of Sudan or at war with Sudan on and off since 1972, and now is finally its own nation. Sudan has recognized it, and so has the United States, it has ratified a Constitution, and now it is busy forming up its government.

Although I have few readers from Africa, perhaps I might have a couple from South Sudan, and so in that spirit I would like to pass on some advice on how to form a successful state.

People are very powerful, and by giving them as much freedom and liberty they will demonstrate their power by creating a prosperous economy, a strong military, and a vibrant civil society. The biggest obstacle to people is an active and large government that takes away responsibility and freedom from the individual, acts as a barrier to innovation and risk-taking, and sucks all of the money out of the system for projects that elites (government agents) deem important. It is my suggestion that any government created by South Sudan have a healthy respect to the dignity of human life, truly believe in the power of liberty and freedom, and work to put in place strong rule of law that protects above all the fruits of ones labor (private property).

A new nation must put in place barriers to itself, checking itself by separating power between different branches of government and then creating checks between branches to limit the abilities of each to overreach and act in a tyrannical manner. It also helps if the nation limits itself further by separating power between a national government designed to address national issues and local governments designed to address local issues, much like our fading federal system here in America.

Although I no very little about this nation so far, it appears that the current President Salva Kiir Mayardit has a chance to be a good one- a former general who was unambiguous about being free, if he can limit himself and set important precedents in his office than he will be a great one. Most nations that achieve independence get stuck with the first President for a long time as that person eventually becomes a dictator- Kiir needs to recognize that what made George Washington great was that he served his nation for two terms and then left office, turning over power peacefully. It is bothersome that he is so closely associated with the military, and that the legislative assembly is so weak and completely controlled by his party, but I have hopes for him, especially if he is a regular reader of my blog.

It is also not a good sign that the nation is so dependent on oil, especially when these oil resources are largely being developed by foreign companies, especially the Chinese government. One hopes that the government will use the ample oil revenues it receives to fund a limited government that will engage in national defense (not war), control its border, and distribute funds to local governments to put in place police and fire services, build libraries, and support transportation and education services. With the amount of revenue that oil provides, there would be little need to borrow abroad or tax its citizens or companies within, and this low tax and low regulation environment would be an engine of economic development that will eventually lead to a more diverse and prosperous economy. Note I did not suggest that the government use its oil revenue to provide a social safety net or redistribute wealth to poor people- a free and prosperous people will do that better than any sort of forced charity that the government could ever do.

Good luck South Sudan- I hope you take my advice and create a government for the people, by the people, that serves the people, in the spirit of life, liberty, and protection of property.

See the memeorandum story for more details on this new nation.

UPDATE: I really didn't want to make this a political issue, but I did see something interesting over at Ace of Spades...

Christian groups had been championing the southern Sudanese since the 19th century. And their efforts paid off in 2000 when George W. Bush was elected president of the United States. He elevated Sudan to the top of his foreign policy agenda, and in 2005, the American government pushed the southern rebels and the central government — both war weary and locked in a military stalemate — to sign a comprehensive peace agreement that guaranteed the southerners the right to secede. On Saturday, one man held up a sign that said "Thank You George Bush."

High Economic Freedom = Where We Want to Be

For years, the United States has been a leader in the world in economic freedom. Economic freedom is defined as having property rights protected by impartial rule of law, free trade, a sound currency, and a small limited government relative to the size of the economy. My blog supports economic freedom, and the political party that I support also pushes for policies that make economic freedom a reality- no bailouts, no government take-overs, bond holder rights that are respected, low and fair taxes, consistent regulations and rules, a restrained bureaucracy, free trade agreements with Columbia or other nations, no inflating the currency through QE or other Fed schemes, a return to the gold standard, and a limited and small government that does take valuable resources away from the private sector.

Many people oppose these policies- they seek to make the United States less free. The problem with this is that those countries that are less free also are less prosperous. By pushing for stimulus bills, czars, subsidies for green energy, deficit spending, higher taxes, inflating of the currency, or other liberal Democrat policies, our nation becomes less economically free, and the result is higher unemployment, lower income, less happiness, lower life expectancy, less clean environment, and more corruption.

I know, I know- you care about the poor people, you see Bush as a bogeyman, you hate the war in Iraq, you are passionate about the environment- it does not matter why you vote Democrat and why you are a liberal, the result is that you support policies that make our nation less economically free, and thus a lesser nation in so many ways.

This video will help illustrate it for you and you'll see what nations are economically free and which ones aren't- and hopefully this will help you to understand what sort of policies to support in our society and which political party to vote for and which ones not to.

H/T to Orlin for passing this video on to me. Thanks!

Graph: U.S. Foreclosure Rates, Colored-Coded by Party in Power

As a homeowner, it has been distressing to watch the federal government put in place policies that encourage homeowners to walk away from their homes and leave the banks holding on to toxic assets. In my opinion, the federal government and its policies are responsibly for the foreclosure mess in our nation. That being said, which political party deserves the brunt of the blame for the foreclosure mess in our nation in 2011? I put together a little graph and color coded it to indicate who I think bears responsibility for the foreclosures that happened while this group was in charge of many of the laws that would affect foreclosures.

My read of the graph is that the introduction of the variable of 'Democrat' in 2006 caused the situation to worsen, the bad situation was made worse by the election of Democratic President Obama, and it is still too soon to tell what sort of effect the GOP taking back 1/2 of Congress has had on the situation. Here is the graph- what is your read of it?

Who Bears the Responsibility for the Crisis in US Foreclosures?
By A Conservative Teacher, aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com

Picture of the Obama's Campaign HQ: Blacks and Women Need Not Apply?

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times, and over at her blog I saw a picture that she took of the Obama 2012 Headquarters in Chicago 'techies corner'. One thing that jumps out to me regarding this picture from the heart of a multiracial Chicago of the HQ for the campaign of a post-racial 'black' President is that out of the 25 people I can see, there are 3 people of color and 4 women. This is the exact sort of diversity that I expect out of a guy like Obama who has put in place policies that have struck the hardest at those groups in society who need the most help.

I'm no math major, but 3/25 is only 12% and 4/25 is only 16%- both of those rates of employment are considerably below what one can find in the population at large and I would imagine that if any private or public business had employment rates like that lawsuits would result.

Here is a picture of the whitest and most male group of staffers that President Obama can assemble:

Tolerating Socialists if There Were Any For Real?

In my class, I tolerate almost every sort of student- conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists, and even moderates. In our discussions, debates, and in simulations, it doesn't matter to me how a student thinks the best way to improve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- it isn't my place to make them conform with my views or my ideology. But even though I'm tolerate of those groups, I do not tolerate fascists, hypocrites, or those students who openly promote tyranny and seek power over others.

Public education receives a lot of money from the state, and that money comes with a responsibility and obligation that I make sure that there are not students in my classroom who think that it okay to openly support fascism, that it is not okay to serially lie about their beliefs and views on issues, or that it is not okay to promote control over other people and tyranny and oppression. I crack down on those beliefs and try to teach students that those are not acceptable in our free and open society- they can think and believe whatever they want, but as long as I'm getting money from a free state of laws and liberty and freedom, I'm not going to let students openly and with my support think or say anything that advocates its violent overthrow or a take over by any hateful groups out there.

That being said, I am plenty accepting of liberals and socialists- as long as that is what they really are. The problem is that there really are not that many true socialists that come through my classroom, because there honestly are not a lot of real socialists in general. Oh, there are plenty of people in society that pretend they are socialist- they preach equality, redistribution of wealth, no ownership of property, fairness, and a society of rainbows and puppy dog tails- but when it really comes down to it and I make them make decisions about their own lives, their own property, their own liberty, it turns out they believe something else entirely.

Many people in society claim to be socialist, but in reality they are just thugs- they want others who they don't like to redistribute their property, by force if necessary. They want other people, not them or their friends, to lose their liberties and freedoms- but not them. They want equality, as long as that equality drags others down to their levels- but once they have more than others and are more fortunate, they no longer believe in equality. They talk about the joys of a society that they can build, ignoring the horrors of it in reality.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote about this in a recent article called There Are No Socialists. Here are some of the key parts:

...The strangest things about the global statist crack-up are socialists’ unhappiness with their socialist utopia, and their subsequent efforts to avoid the consequences of the very redistributive state that they themselves once so gladly crafted...

...Here at home, Obama got his ObamaCare. Why, then, did he grant hundreds of exemptions — many to northern California liberals? Should they instead not have lined up to volunteer to implement such a wonderful, long-needed entitlement?

He said energy would rightly sky-rocket, given his determination to curb fossil fuel production (cf. “bankrupt” coal companies). Why then is Obama concerned that gas hit $4; is not such a high price a welcomed retardant to burning hot fuels? The higher the gas prices, the more that subsidized wind and solar power, and electric cars are attractive, and thus the more we enjoy “sustainable” power. Right? Am I missing something about this desire within our grasp of “living within our means”?

Obama enjoyed big majorities in both houses of Congress; and on the campaign trail he had promised a de facto amnesty under the euphemism of “comprehensive immigration reform.” So why did he not grant such exemptions, and absorb 11, 15, or 20 million new “citizens” from Oaxaca? Is not that the point of amnesty, to welcome in new constituencies who will remember a benefactor at the polls?...

....This discussion is, of course, a belabored example of why and how socialists do not like socialism. Indeed, statism is not a desired outcome, but rather more a strategy for obtaining power or winning acclaim as one of the caring, by offering the narcotic of promising millions something free at the expense of others who must be seen as culpable and obligated to fund it — entitlements fueled by someone else’s money that enfeebled the state, but in the process extended power, influence, and money to a technocratic class of overseers who are exempt from the very system that they have advocated.

So what is socialism? It is a sort of modern version of Louis XV’s “Après moi, le déluge” – an unsustainable Ponzi scheme in which elite overseers, for the duration of their own lives, enjoy power, influence, and gratuities by implementing a system that destroys the sort of wealth for others that they depend upon for themselves....

...History is not kind to such collective states of mind. Pay an Athenian in the fifth century BC a subsidy to go to the theater; and in the fourth century BC he is demanding such pay to vote in the assembly as well — and there is not to be a third century free democratic polis. Extend to a Roman in the first century BC a small grain dole, and by the late first century AD he cannot live without a big dole, free entertainment in a huge new Coliseum, and disbursements of free coined money. Let the emperor Justinian try cutting back the bloated bureaucracy in sixth century AD Constantinople and he wins the Nika riots that almost destroy a civilization from within even as it is beset by hosts of foreign enemies....

Victor Davis Hanson is the author of books such as The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern and How The Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security (Encounter Broadsides).

Grand Rapids Michigan Not Dying but instead Scene of Greatest Music Video Ever Made

Although I'm from the east side of Michigan, I still feel pride in our state when I watch the following video that was produced in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It is a massive city wide lip sync; a single long recording shot of residents singing along with Don McLean's "American Pie" that features the entire cityscape of Grand Rapids put together in amazing technical skill. Roger Ebert called it "the greatest music video ever made."

The motivation for this was Newsweek naming Grand Rapids as a 'dying city'- and that magazine couldn't be more wrong. Although a decade or more ago it might have been, today behind the generous donations of great business leaders, smart policies by politicians, and a good old Midwestern can-do spirit, it is now a city on the rise. From Art Prize to the Griffins to the nearby sand dune beaches of West Michigan, if you are looking for a great city to visit and spend some time in, Grand Rapids is it.

And now this video- it is amazing, down to the last shot of a city that is not dying but is on the rise. It is great- check it out!

Happy Independence Day 2011!

As a good patriot, today I am celebrating the 4th of July like every American should- displaying my patriotism with flags and fireworks, improving my property by mowing my lawn and trimming the bushes, enhancing the quality of my life by eating great food and spending time with my family, and remembering my liberty by re-reading our founding documents and doing what I want free from government control. It doesn't matter to me what the elites who increasingly rule over me think- I'm going to eat a nice juicy hamburger made with real butter and cheese in it, sit on a chair and watch a ball game for a bit, and maybe even smoke a cigar. The fireworks I'll light off will be loud and bright and I'm not entirely sure if they are legal, if one of my kids gets a skinned knee from playing a game of touch football I'll take care of it, and we'll drive to go see our parents in our biggest SUV. I'm going to live the dream of a free man on this 4th of July and savor in the freedoms that are under continual assault by elites from the beginning of time until today.

If you haven't done so already, make sure you take a minute of your time today to reflect and read the Declaration of Independence, and don't feel silly about reading it before the BBQ or as the bedtime story for your kids tonight.

In particular, read and think about the first part of it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

Those lines mean something, to me, to conservatives, to Republicans, and to America, and we should always remember how revolutionary those ideas are, how incredible it is to actually believe them, and how much of a leap of faith you must make to follow them. You really need to BELIEVE in those ideas- not just say them and not just work to put policies in place to govern our nation, but believe in your heart of hearts in those words that lay out truth of the human condition and the nature of government.

Those ideas needed to be fought for back in 1776, and our Founding Fathers did so in the Revolutionary War- but the ideas in the Declaration of Independence still need to be fought for today and every day, because it is the nature of tyranny to slowly strip away life, liberty, and property and to enlarge the government so that it unaccountable and tyrannical. Today, we have watched our liberties been rationalized away by our leaders, our legislators spend us into servitude and seize our own property to do so, our courts regularly mock the Constitution and believe it to be a dead thing, and especially lately, unimaginable tyranny and government control of our day-to-day lives.

You and I will always been free and independent- no government can take that away from us- but every day, our free and independent condition is lessened- with each new dollar taken from us, with each new exception to our rights made, with each life lessened, and with each regulation passed. As a nation, we are dishonoring our Founding Fathers and what they fought for and letting down our children, who will not get to grow up in a nation based on life, liberty, and property, but instead will be raised in increasing tyranny and rule of man.

So on this Independence Day, rededicate yourself to our founding ideas, enjoy your life, liberty, and property, and be sure that you spend some time reading the Founding Documents to your friends, family, and children. Happy Independence Day 2011!

What the History of the Russian Tsars can Teach Us Today

Yesterday I watched Russia - Land of the Tsars, a History Channel production that told the history of the Tsars of Russia from Peter the Great to Nicholas II. Russia has an interesting history, and no matter how many times I've studied it or investigated it, I always come out a little more confused- as Winston Churchill once said "Russia is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." That being said, the people of Russia are people too, and one theme that is common to all people is the desire for human liberty and freedom and the desire of other people to control and use other people. The struggle for life, liberty, and the protection of property that one earns from ones labor is a struggle that transcends nations and peoples, and while I watched this production I was reminded again of this struggle.

Tsars in particular were fascinating to me- Alexander I and Alexander II. Both had a chance to move Russia towards a liberal moderate constitutional monarchy, but both were defeated in these efforts by well-meaning democrats and socialists, who instead moved Russia closer to communism and fascism through their actions. This is frequently the case- some people work actively to defeat moves in the right direction because they are not the 'perfect' direction to move, without understanding that an oblique move is still a move forward.

After the assassination of spoiled and rotten Paul I, his son Alexander I became Tsar and he represents in his one person both the inclination for entitlement and elitism and a desire for control over others that he learned from his father and also a sense of enlightenment and a recognition of the worth of others and the inclination for liberty that he learned from his tutors and his grandmother Catherine II the Great. During his time as tsar, he struggled to reconcile these two competing belief systems. He moved Russia closer to a constitutional monarchy, put in place a Council of Ministers, allowed the serfs more rights, and attention to a more balanced budget all marked him in his early in his life as a liberal reformer who did things to improve the life, liberty, and protection of property of the people of Russia. But Alexander I was badly shaken by a revolutionary conspiracy among the officers of the guard around 1816, and by a foolish plot to kidnap him on his way to the Congress of Aix-la-Chapell in 1818- both undertaken by well-meaning democrats who were unhappy with the pace of change and so decided to speed things. After these incidents, Alexander I was forced to back away from liberalism and stopped reforms, and the moment passed, and his brother and successor Nicholas I reversed much of these actions and was greatly repressive, all because some made perfect the enemy of good.

Nicholas I was one of the most reactionary of all the Russian monarchs, and it is during his reign that we can see what happens when human liberty is not encouraged, when private property is not protected, and when life is respected. Although he ruled for 30 years and was successful in maintaining power and in enlarging the size of Russia, it is during his reign that Russia falls farther and farther behind the rest of the world in military power and economic production, and it is during his reign that the seeds for the future terror that was Lenin and Stalin were put in place. The hallmarks of his administration were abolishing local government, increasing censorship, increased government control over major industries, increased power of the national government, increased taxes, and ran up the national debt. The result- industries lagged, the industrial revolution avoided backwards Russia, revolution and unrest simmered, and the Russian military was embarrassed in the Crimean War. Bribe-taking, theft and corruption were everywhere.

With the death of Nicholas I in 1855, the Russian crown passed to his eldest son, Alexander II. There was little in Alexander II's upbringing or character to indicate that he would be one of the greatest reformers in the history of Russia, but sometimes when people who are good are given a chance, even if they are not perfect, they surprise you. And surprise Alexander II did- he ended the Crimean War, began to clean up the crony capitalism that ran rampant in government, lowered taxes, filled the treasury, exploited natural resources, encouraged business development, emancipated the serfs in 1861, rebuilt the military, put in place a new judicial system, greatly simplified civil and criminal procedures, encouraged rule of law, empowered local police, moved more power to local governments, and generally acted with more humanity towards everyone he dealt with. He was not perfect, but did much to advance human liberty, protect property from capricious actions by government, and protect the lives of people from the state. But there were some who felt that he didn't go far enough often enough, and these radicals, raised in the oppression of Nicholas I's reign, were not just conservative democrats, but instead the more dangerous kinds of revolutionaries, socialists, who sipped the Kool-Aid and truly believed that a better world could be made by using the state to redistribute wealth, control industries, and pick winners and losers in society. They dogged Alexander II, repeatedly trying to assassinate him, until eventually they were successful and killed Alexander II in March of 1881. Alexander II was followed by a conservative and repressive Alexander III and Nicholas II, who did little to return to the agenda that Alexander II had put in place prior to his death.

One of those who were part of the plot to kill Alexander II was Alexander Ulyanov, who was very much looked up to by his younger brother, a young community activist known as Vladimir Lenin. One wonders what might have happened if Alexander I or Alexander II might have succeeded in their attempts to move Russia forward- perhaps it would not have slid backwards and fallen victim to the awful atrocities that were the reigns of Lenin and Stalin, and the millions in dead might still be alive and prosperous today.

Sometimes good is good enough, and even if some Tsars were not perfect, they did advance human liberty, protect property, and protect human lives from the excesses of the state. It is important that we take time to learn about them so that we may learn some lessons from them and apply those lessons to our own nation and to our own choices of who should be governing our nation.

The video can be found at Russia - Land of the Tsars.