I can't believe how stupid big government spending can be sometimes. Here's an article in the Rapid City Journal, and I became progressively more irritated the more I read.
First off, seat belts save lives, and that's a proven fact. But here's my gripe:
According to the article, if South Dakota simply makes a seat belt violation a primary offense (currently it's a secondary offense, and you can't be pulled over for just that), the Federal government will give us a five million dollar check. In times of a budget deficit, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
Not so much. Should South Dakota accept that check, there are strings attached that require the money to be directed toward seat belt campaigns (everyone's probably heard those stupid "click it or ticket" campaigns in Minnesota) and safety-related things. The article states that seat belt compliance in South Dakota without any laws forcing us to do so is at 72%.
So bottom line, accepting that five million dollars of taxpayer money basically goes toward making commercials to remind us to do something that 72% of the state does already.
In addition, why is it the government's responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Why aren't we responsible for our own safety in our vehicles? We know it's smart to wear out seat belts and most of us do, so why not use five million dollars for more worthwhile causes or perhaps not even take it from us in the first place? Criminalizing not using a seat belt will do very little to increase the 72% compliance anyway, and I think it's ridiculous that this appropriation takes taxes from the entire country to pay for seat belt radio ads in South Dakota.
These kinds of stupid, redundant appropriations are why our spending is out of control and we have a trillion dollar budget deficit. You want to talk about change? Let's start paying attention to how dumb the government's spending practices are.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Single Parenthood
There's been a lot of talk this last week about Ann Coulter and her comments and viewpoints on single parenthood. Conservatives are often painted in a light of not caring about women's rights, the male is the head of the household, etc. I would like to refute that and offer up my view on what us conservatives feel about single parenthood. This is a paper that I wrote for my Composition II class:
Families play a critical role in human development. They help shape our beliefs, our morals, and our interests. Basically, families make us who we are as a person. Families come in all shapes and sizes, everything from the basic family of a mother, father, and children to large, extended families that include several generations. Modern households also consist of single parents and mixed families that involve remarriages, divorces, and stepchildren. Many relationships also exist in the form of cohabiting couples, and children may or may not be present. With all these different forms of families, which is best for children? Recent trends show that single parenthood is on the rise, often with the mother as the sole provider for the children. Much debate swirls about whether single parenthood is good or not for both children and society, but traditional (also known as nuclear) families seem to work the best. Nuclear families are essential for children’s healthy development and for a healthy nation.
Barbara Whitehead states that “divorce and out-of-wedlock birth are transforming the lives of American children” (520). She could not be more right. The breakdown of the nuclear family is a huge problem in many areas. One of the more serious and extensive areas is poverty. Clearly a link exists between poverty and single parenthood. Most often, mothers are responsible for the care of children in single-parent situations, whether by being awarded custody or because they actually had the child. Iris Young firmly believes that poverty is the culprit behind single-motherhood (551). Poverty may be the cause of single motherhood in some cases, but Young seriously underestimates the costs of being a single parent. A single-parent household does not have the earning capacity of a traditional, dual-parent household, which means that the single parent takes on twice the work and responsibilities. Not only does a single parent have to maintain a decent job to support his or herself, but this parent has to also care for the child. Childcare is a full time job in itself! Children need parental attention to develop properly, which is where traditional families are important. Traditional families have two wage-earners, a situation that offers two options. Either one parent works all the time and one stays with the kids, or both work some of the time. Either way, a two-parent home offers the same crucial element: more time spent with kids. Not only is more time spent with the children, but the family can maintain the same income as one full-time parent, with the added bonus of more parent-child interaction. Thus, the chances of poverty are less with two parents, and kids receive the benefits of having their parents around more.
Poverty due to a single-parent household can lead to many secondary problems as well. Poverty can lead to depression, and a depressed parent is probably not the most effective parent they can be. When a parent is depressed, often the children end up with the same problem. Children from broken homes have a higher rate of suicide, crime, and violence, which may be attributed to depression and lack of effective parental authority (Whitehead 522). Since a single parent in poverty will most likely be working all the time or looking for a job to make ends meet, the child is often left in the care of a babysitter or relative. Secondary caregivers may be just as loving as the parent, but they do not have the same special bond that exists between children and their parents. Children hold their parents in a higher regard. One hears kids all the time exclaiming things like “I don’t have to listen to you, you’re not my mom,” or “you’re not my real dad!” Phrases like these from kids themselves show us how important the biological parent-child bond is, and subsequently why having a poverty-stricken single parent working all the time is a problem.
The problem of single parenthood has become far worse in recent times. More people are filing for divorce than ever, and record percentages of children are growing up without two parents. Aside from divorce, young sexual activity has become more accepted and even encouraged, which has led to more teen pregnancies, another cause of single-parent families. Single-parent situations are even starting to be encouraged. Whitehead states that feminism has greatly contributed to the rise of single motherhood. A single mother working on her own to support a family epitomizes the feminist movement’s idea of women’s independence, and one prominent feminist, Gloria Steinem, even stated that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”(530). Nobody is against women’s independence, but it is an issue that should be separated from children’s welfare. Nothing is wrong with Steinem’s quote that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle,” but she should keep this in mind: a child without a father is like a bicycle with a flat tire. The child can go places, but not as effectively or happily as if he or she had both parents.
Single parenthood will continue to be a problem if something is not done. The younger generations are growing up with certain attitudes about relationships that are very problematic. First, divorce is not seen as a problem, but as an easy way out if a problem comes up in a relationship. Younger generations see many divorces occur for frivolous reasons and grow up with this thought in mind. The problem will only compound itself as a whole new generation grows up seeing divorce as an easy solution to problems. Younger generations also see family as less important, regardless of their family structure. Children and youth devote more time to school, extracurricular activities, and friends than ever before. Very few spend considerable amounts of time with family anymore.
Other attitudes also help perpetuate acceptance of single parenthood. Shere Hite believes traditional families are too authoritarian and create a submissive environment that prevents children from thinking for themselves and promotes weakness and subservience of women (488-489). She may be right in the case of a severely male-dominated household where the male holds the attitudes she describes, but Hite makes it seem like every traditional family is like this. Parents need to have a certain amount of control and authority over their children, for at least two reasons. First, Hite proposes that bringing children up with the choice of whether to accept their parents’ power or not is a positive thing (488). Her proposal would result in nothing short of chaos. Let kids choose to listen to their parents? If drugs, sex, alcohol, vandalism, crime, and things like that are bad now, imagine what things would be like without any parental authority! The same attitude toward authority would carry into adulthood. Why would adults have any respect for laws and authority if they did not have to as children? Second, parental authority is important for a very, very important reason: experience. Parents have grown up just as their children are doing. Kids learn to listen to their parents, because parents already know what to do and what not to do, so parental authority helps kids develop without making the same mistakes their parents did.
Dual parent families work best, in the proper context. Several situations of course call for divorce, because the negatives of keeping the current family outweigh the positives of a nuclear family. Spouse rape and abuse, child abuse, and a dominating spouse are some examples of negative situations in a family that may require a divorce. Aside from bad marital situations, two parents are critical to a healthy family. Even those families in poverty get along better and are happier than single parents in the same situation (Lerman). An ideal family should also exhibit egalitarian behavior. In other words, no one spouse is above the other. Both parents work together in a more democratic way to solve problems and nurture the family as a whole. Disputes should be carried out in a civil, non-violent way. Children’s input should be considered, too, and decisions made as a family to foster healthy relationships.
Traditional, egalitarian families are also good for our country, as they foster healthy debate and discussion within them because compromise is required. Hite argues that non-traditional families bring a diversity of viewpoints and opinions, which fosters a healthy democracy (492-493). She is right in the sense that different, conflicting viewpoints bring about compromise and the best solutions; she is wrong that non-traditional families promote compromise best. A traditional family unit promotes diverse viewpoints better than a variety of different family types in the country. A traditional family involves a man and a woman, two creatures different not only anatomically, but mentally as well. Men tend to be decisive, brash, methodical, logical, and goal-orientated. Women tend to be inquisitive, analytical, sensitive, caring, and detail-orientated. The traits of both men and women can be strengths and weaknesses, depending on the situation. When used in combination, the traits of men and women in a traditional relationship foster a better diversity of viewpoints and compromise than single-person households could ever hope to.
Several solutions could be used to reduce single parenthood. First, more premarital counseling should be required to make sure couples really are compatible with each other, that way couples hopefully realize they should not be together before they make kids and divorce. Second, divorces need to be harder to obtain. All too often, couples have a bad argument and just divorce instead of talking through their problems. Marital therapy sessions need to be required before couples can divorce, and the waiting period needs to be longer to give couples time to sort things out. Divorces should only take time as long as the children involved in the relationship are not harmed or traumatized by the parents’ dispute, in which case a prompt divorce is important. Third, since mothers (who usually receive custody) are often thrown into poverty because they have to care for a child and themselves, more alimony needs to be granted instead of measly child-support payments, which are often not even enforced. Fathers in divorces need to have a larger role in their child’s development, if only in the form of financial support of their child. Also, joint custody should be granted more often than it currently is. Divorces would be less traumatic for kids, and they still receive the benefits of both parents. Also, sex should not be taken so lightly. Young adults need to be taught that there are serious repercussions that can come from being sexually active. Kids are a much bigger responsibility than many realize, and sexually active people need to be aware of this, because accidents do happen.
Overall, two-parent traditional households offer better family situations. In recent times, non-traditional and single-parent families have been on the rise, but traditional families are important. They help promote healthy, caring growth of children since sufficient income to support a family is not as difficult with two parents, and parents are also free to spend time with their children. More time spent with children helps keep them happier and out of trouble. Each parent brings strengths and weaknesses to a relationship, and the resulting compromises are best for families. Hopefully, with the use of some solutions to reduce single-parent situations, more children can be brought up with both a mom and a dad and live happier and healthier lives.
Families play a critical role in human development. They help shape our beliefs, our morals, and our interests. Basically, families make us who we are as a person. Families come in all shapes and sizes, everything from the basic family of a mother, father, and children to large, extended families that include several generations. Modern households also consist of single parents and mixed families that involve remarriages, divorces, and stepchildren. Many relationships also exist in the form of cohabiting couples, and children may or may not be present. With all these different forms of families, which is best for children? Recent trends show that single parenthood is on the rise, often with the mother as the sole provider for the children. Much debate swirls about whether single parenthood is good or not for both children and society, but traditional (also known as nuclear) families seem to work the best. Nuclear families are essential for children’s healthy development and for a healthy nation.
Barbara Whitehead states that “divorce and out-of-wedlock birth are transforming the lives of American children” (520). She could not be more right. The breakdown of the nuclear family is a huge problem in many areas. One of the more serious and extensive areas is poverty. Clearly a link exists between poverty and single parenthood. Most often, mothers are responsible for the care of children in single-parent situations, whether by being awarded custody or because they actually had the child. Iris Young firmly believes that poverty is the culprit behind single-motherhood (551). Poverty may be the cause of single motherhood in some cases, but Young seriously underestimates the costs of being a single parent. A single-parent household does not have the earning capacity of a traditional, dual-parent household, which means that the single parent takes on twice the work and responsibilities. Not only does a single parent have to maintain a decent job to support his or herself, but this parent has to also care for the child. Childcare is a full time job in itself! Children need parental attention to develop properly, which is where traditional families are important. Traditional families have two wage-earners, a situation that offers two options. Either one parent works all the time and one stays with the kids, or both work some of the time. Either way, a two-parent home offers the same crucial element: more time spent with kids. Not only is more time spent with the children, but the family can maintain the same income as one full-time parent, with the added bonus of more parent-child interaction. Thus, the chances of poverty are less with two parents, and kids receive the benefits of having their parents around more.
Poverty due to a single-parent household can lead to many secondary problems as well. Poverty can lead to depression, and a depressed parent is probably not the most effective parent they can be. When a parent is depressed, often the children end up with the same problem. Children from broken homes have a higher rate of suicide, crime, and violence, which may be attributed to depression and lack of effective parental authority (Whitehead 522). Since a single parent in poverty will most likely be working all the time or looking for a job to make ends meet, the child is often left in the care of a babysitter or relative. Secondary caregivers may be just as loving as the parent, but they do not have the same special bond that exists between children and their parents. Children hold their parents in a higher regard. One hears kids all the time exclaiming things like “I don’t have to listen to you, you’re not my mom,” or “you’re not my real dad!” Phrases like these from kids themselves show us how important the biological parent-child bond is, and subsequently why having a poverty-stricken single parent working all the time is a problem.
The problem of single parenthood has become far worse in recent times. More people are filing for divorce than ever, and record percentages of children are growing up without two parents. Aside from divorce, young sexual activity has become more accepted and even encouraged, which has led to more teen pregnancies, another cause of single-parent families. Single-parent situations are even starting to be encouraged. Whitehead states that feminism has greatly contributed to the rise of single motherhood. A single mother working on her own to support a family epitomizes the feminist movement’s idea of women’s independence, and one prominent feminist, Gloria Steinem, even stated that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”(530). Nobody is against women’s independence, but it is an issue that should be separated from children’s welfare. Nothing is wrong with Steinem’s quote that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle,” but she should keep this in mind: a child without a father is like a bicycle with a flat tire. The child can go places, but not as effectively or happily as if he or she had both parents.
Single parenthood will continue to be a problem if something is not done. The younger generations are growing up with certain attitudes about relationships that are very problematic. First, divorce is not seen as a problem, but as an easy way out if a problem comes up in a relationship. Younger generations see many divorces occur for frivolous reasons and grow up with this thought in mind. The problem will only compound itself as a whole new generation grows up seeing divorce as an easy solution to problems. Younger generations also see family as less important, regardless of their family structure. Children and youth devote more time to school, extracurricular activities, and friends than ever before. Very few spend considerable amounts of time with family anymore.
Other attitudes also help perpetuate acceptance of single parenthood. Shere Hite believes traditional families are too authoritarian and create a submissive environment that prevents children from thinking for themselves and promotes weakness and subservience of women (488-489). She may be right in the case of a severely male-dominated household where the male holds the attitudes she describes, but Hite makes it seem like every traditional family is like this. Parents need to have a certain amount of control and authority over their children, for at least two reasons. First, Hite proposes that bringing children up with the choice of whether to accept their parents’ power or not is a positive thing (488). Her proposal would result in nothing short of chaos. Let kids choose to listen to their parents? If drugs, sex, alcohol, vandalism, crime, and things like that are bad now, imagine what things would be like without any parental authority! The same attitude toward authority would carry into adulthood. Why would adults have any respect for laws and authority if they did not have to as children? Second, parental authority is important for a very, very important reason: experience. Parents have grown up just as their children are doing. Kids learn to listen to their parents, because parents already know what to do and what not to do, so parental authority helps kids develop without making the same mistakes their parents did.
Dual parent families work best, in the proper context. Several situations of course call for divorce, because the negatives of keeping the current family outweigh the positives of a nuclear family. Spouse rape and abuse, child abuse, and a dominating spouse are some examples of negative situations in a family that may require a divorce. Aside from bad marital situations, two parents are critical to a healthy family. Even those families in poverty get along better and are happier than single parents in the same situation (Lerman). An ideal family should also exhibit egalitarian behavior. In other words, no one spouse is above the other. Both parents work together in a more democratic way to solve problems and nurture the family as a whole. Disputes should be carried out in a civil, non-violent way. Children’s input should be considered, too, and decisions made as a family to foster healthy relationships.
Traditional, egalitarian families are also good for our country, as they foster healthy debate and discussion within them because compromise is required. Hite argues that non-traditional families bring a diversity of viewpoints and opinions, which fosters a healthy democracy (492-493). She is right in the sense that different, conflicting viewpoints bring about compromise and the best solutions; she is wrong that non-traditional families promote compromise best. A traditional family unit promotes diverse viewpoints better than a variety of different family types in the country. A traditional family involves a man and a woman, two creatures different not only anatomically, but mentally as well. Men tend to be decisive, brash, methodical, logical, and goal-orientated. Women tend to be inquisitive, analytical, sensitive, caring, and detail-orientated. The traits of both men and women can be strengths and weaknesses, depending on the situation. When used in combination, the traits of men and women in a traditional relationship foster a better diversity of viewpoints and compromise than single-person households could ever hope to.
Several solutions could be used to reduce single parenthood. First, more premarital counseling should be required to make sure couples really are compatible with each other, that way couples hopefully realize they should not be together before they make kids and divorce. Second, divorces need to be harder to obtain. All too often, couples have a bad argument and just divorce instead of talking through their problems. Marital therapy sessions need to be required before couples can divorce, and the waiting period needs to be longer to give couples time to sort things out. Divorces should only take time as long as the children involved in the relationship are not harmed or traumatized by the parents’ dispute, in which case a prompt divorce is important. Third, since mothers (who usually receive custody) are often thrown into poverty because they have to care for a child and themselves, more alimony needs to be granted instead of measly child-support payments, which are often not even enforced. Fathers in divorces need to have a larger role in their child’s development, if only in the form of financial support of their child. Also, joint custody should be granted more often than it currently is. Divorces would be less traumatic for kids, and they still receive the benefits of both parents. Also, sex should not be taken so lightly. Young adults need to be taught that there are serious repercussions that can come from being sexually active. Kids are a much bigger responsibility than many realize, and sexually active people need to be aware of this, because accidents do happen.
Overall, two-parent traditional households offer better family situations. In recent times, non-traditional and single-parent families have been on the rise, but traditional families are important. They help promote healthy, caring growth of children since sufficient income to support a family is not as difficult with two parents, and parents are also free to spend time with their children. More time spent with children helps keep them happier and out of trouble. Each parent brings strengths and weaknesses to a relationship, and the resulting compromises are best for families. Hopefully, with the use of some solutions to reduce single-parent situations, more children can be brought up with both a mom and a dad and live happier and healthier lives.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Al Franken: Liar, Cheater, Crook...And I Proved It
So Minnesota is about to elect a lying left-wing crook to the United States Sentate, and it only took me 45 seconds to prove it.
For those of you who don't know, Al Franken is a former writer for Saturday Night Live who also tried to make a living as a far-left liberal talk show host, and now he is on the verge of defeating Norm Coleman for one of Minnesota's Senate seats. He's a carpetbagger politician who moved to Minnesota just for this race and still maintains residency in New York. Anyway, back to my analysis.
I was on YouTube one day, most likely watching "Charlie Bit My Finger" over and over again, and on the suggested videos tab on the side, I saw a video entitled "Al Franken: Where Rush Limbaugh Gets His Facts From." I hear criticism of Franken all the time by conservative commentators, but I try to be a fair-minded guy and wanted to hear what Franken had to say. It's a short 1 minute clip.
Click here to watch it, then continue reading...
The whole premise of Al Franken's argument was that Rush Limbaugh is a fat liar who pulls facts out of his butt and has no credibility because he's a stupid conservative. He challenged Rush's claim that almost all people making the minimum wage are either high schoolers or young people in their first jobs that are most likely still dependent upon parents. In other words, Rush was saying that people are much better off than the minimum wage anyway and that America isn't as terrible as liberals would like you to believe.
Franken goes on to mock Rush by saying that he's much smarter because Franken gets his facts from a little place called the "Bureau of Labor Statistics".
So I said touche Mr. Franken, I'll go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (click here).
Then I scrolled over the "pay and benefits tab"...then moved over to"earnings by demographics"...scrolled down to "Earnings by Demographics" and clicked on the 2007 tab, which is the most recent year they had. It then pulled up this 91-page document. I then searched the document for "minimum wage", and low and behold, this was my second search result:
What's my point? If little old me, Brandon, can just randomly be on YouTube, watch a random clip of Al Franken, and off-handedly go and try to catch him lying and do so in 45 seconds, I think it's pretty safe to say he's a bigger liar than most people realize. And now he might (there will be lawsuits for months by the Coleman campaign) be an actual United States Senator, making decisions that affect you and me. Thanks Minnesota, mission accomplished.
On a side note, Al Franken does do a great Rush Limbaugh impression, I'll give him that.
For those of you who don't know, Al Franken is a former writer for Saturday Night Live who also tried to make a living as a far-left liberal talk show host, and now he is on the verge of defeating Norm Coleman for one of Minnesota's Senate seats. He's a carpetbagger politician who moved to Minnesota just for this race and still maintains residency in New York. Anyway, back to my analysis.
I was on YouTube one day, most likely watching "Charlie Bit My Finger" over and over again, and on the suggested videos tab on the side, I saw a video entitled "Al Franken: Where Rush Limbaugh Gets His Facts From." I hear criticism of Franken all the time by conservative commentators, but I try to be a fair-minded guy and wanted to hear what Franken had to say. It's a short 1 minute clip.
Click here to watch it, then continue reading...
The whole premise of Al Franken's argument was that Rush Limbaugh is a fat liar who pulls facts out of his butt and has no credibility because he's a stupid conservative. He challenged Rush's claim that almost all people making the minimum wage are either high schoolers or young people in their first jobs that are most likely still dependent upon parents. In other words, Rush was saying that people are much better off than the minimum wage anyway and that America isn't as terrible as liberals would like you to believe.
Franken goes on to mock Rush by saying that he's much smarter because Franken gets his facts from a little place called the "Bureau of Labor Statistics".
So I said touche Mr. Franken, I'll go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (click here).
Then I scrolled over the "pay and benefits tab"...then moved over to"earnings by demographics"...scrolled down to "Earnings by Demographics" and clicked on the 2007 tab, which is the most recent year they had. It then pulled up this 91-page document. I then searched the document for "minimum wage", and low and behold, this was my second search result:
"Hourly paid workers aged 16 to 19 were the most likelyIn other words, Rush Limbaugh was absolutely correct in his observation of who exactly the people most likely to be minimum wage earners are, while Mr. Franken just got run in with his own source. And mind you it literally took me 3 clicks and 45 seconds to disprove what Franken said.
to have earnings at or below the minimum wage. Seven
percent of teenage workers earned the prevailing Federal
minimum wage or less, compared with just 1.5 percent of
hourly paid workers aged 25 and older. Among those aged
20 to 24, about 4 percent had earnings at or below the
minimum wage. (See table 11.)" (Click here to view the document)
What's my point? If little old me, Brandon, can just randomly be on YouTube, watch a random clip of Al Franken, and off-handedly go and try to catch him lying and do so in 45 seconds, I think it's pretty safe to say he's a bigger liar than most people realize. And now he might (there will be lawsuits for months by the Coleman campaign) be an actual United States Senator, making decisions that affect you and me. Thanks Minnesota, mission accomplished.
On a side note, Al Franken does do a great Rush Limbaugh impression, I'll give him that.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Conservatism Helps The Poor And Society In General
I think there are some serious misconceptions out there about the Republican Party and conservatism. One of the worst misinterpretations of conservative tenants is the perception that we could care less about the poor. Conventional wisdom out there in liberal land tells you that Republicans love stomping on the poor with the proverbial boot of big businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth, but our methodology is not as obvious as getting a check in the mail.
First, Republicans are pro-business for a reason: successful businesses help everyone out, including the poor. We have an economic system where all the businesses are fighting to give you what you want, when you want it, and at the lowest possible cost so more people buy their stuff over the competitor's. Having the necessities of life at a minimal price helps the poor greatly. If you're poor, Wal-Mart is your best friend. Dollars saved here and there add up quickly.
Second, companies provide tons of jobs for everyone to help poverty and unemployment at a minimum. I know many of you work at Daktronics. Having that big company right here in tiny Brookings is a great source of jobs for the poor (a.k.a. college students) to help them make ends meet. Liberals would have you think Daktronics is rich and evil and that they need to be taxed as much as possible. The corporate tax rate in the United States is 39 percent. Just think how many more jobs Daktronics could afford and provide if they could make 39 percent more? Companies expand and reap greater profits through hiring additional people to get more things done. Also, look what companies have been able to do for us. Through their millions of investors and customers, they have been able to accomplish unimaginable things for the benefit of all.
Take Verizon Wireless, for example. Last year they spent over a billion dollars on network improvements alone (or 14 dollars for each of their 70.8 million customers), allowing people to communicate from almost anywhere in America. If you get caught in a blizzard and call 911, your phone will communicate with a satellite in outer space, which can then tell dispatchers where you are within one foot. All that at the lowest possible cost to all of us. Taxing companies more hinders the ability for them to provide services like that and provide work for Americans.
Probably the most important way that conservatives care for the poor is how we choose to help them out. We actually like handouts to the needy just like our liberal friends; the difference is that we believe it's our responsibility as individuals to help our neighbors out. Sure it's easy to just raise taxes on the rich to help the poor, where we give the government ten dollars for one dollar worth of benefit. Let me keep that ten dollars and I'll go over and drop it in the Children's Miracle Network box in The Union. We know our neighbors and friends way better than any government entity, so who is best suited to help them out - the government or us? When I'm having a tough time, I talk to my friends and family instead of calling congressmen. If you're hit with hard times, what's going to give you a better, more positive outlook on life: a big check in the mail or a big spaghetti fundraiser with all of your friends and family there to help you pay for your chemotherapy? We need to help each other out, not look to a bloated, inefficient government to do it for us.
First, Republicans are pro-business for a reason: successful businesses help everyone out, including the poor. We have an economic system where all the businesses are fighting to give you what you want, when you want it, and at the lowest possible cost so more people buy their stuff over the competitor's. Having the necessities of life at a minimal price helps the poor greatly. If you're poor, Wal-Mart is your best friend. Dollars saved here and there add up quickly.
Second, companies provide tons of jobs for everyone to help poverty and unemployment at a minimum. I know many of you work at Daktronics. Having that big company right here in tiny Brookings is a great source of jobs for the poor (a.k.a. college students) to help them make ends meet. Liberals would have you think Daktronics is rich and evil and that they need to be taxed as much as possible. The corporate tax rate in the United States is 39 percent. Just think how many more jobs Daktronics could afford and provide if they could make 39 percent more? Companies expand and reap greater profits through hiring additional people to get more things done. Also, look what companies have been able to do for us. Through their millions of investors and customers, they have been able to accomplish unimaginable things for the benefit of all.
Take Verizon Wireless, for example. Last year they spent over a billion dollars on network improvements alone (or 14 dollars for each of their 70.8 million customers), allowing people to communicate from almost anywhere in America. If you get caught in a blizzard and call 911, your phone will communicate with a satellite in outer space, which can then tell dispatchers where you are within one foot. All that at the lowest possible cost to all of us. Taxing companies more hinders the ability for them to provide services like that and provide work for Americans.
Probably the most important way that conservatives care for the poor is how we choose to help them out. We actually like handouts to the needy just like our liberal friends; the difference is that we believe it's our responsibility as individuals to help our neighbors out. Sure it's easy to just raise taxes on the rich to help the poor, where we give the government ten dollars for one dollar worth of benefit. Let me keep that ten dollars and I'll go over and drop it in the Children's Miracle Network box in The Union. We know our neighbors and friends way better than any government entity, so who is best suited to help them out - the government or us? When I'm having a tough time, I talk to my friends and family instead of calling congressmen. If you're hit with hard times, what's going to give you a better, more positive outlook on life: a big check in the mail or a big spaghetti fundraiser with all of your friends and family there to help you pay for your chemotherapy? We need to help each other out, not look to a bloated, inefficient government to do it for us.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Real Change vs. Radical Change: What Would Conservatives Change?
Change. During this election, we’ve heard that word so many times we’re ready to puke. Obviously this country needs something different from what we currently have, what with a presidential approval in the low 30’s and a congress with an absolutely dismal approval rating of 9 percent. But in these rough times, I would ask you to think very carefully about what kind of change you want. There’s a difference between radical change and real change. I think most of America’s frustrations stem from the fact that the people we send to Washington to run our country don’t reflect what we believe. Let me throw some numbers at you:
-57 to 27 percent of the country would prefer less government services and lower taxes
-72 percent of Americans think that people moving to this country should adopt our culture
-69 percent of Americans feel the income tax system is unfair in that it taxes earnings rather than spending
-62 percent of Americans feel the country is fair and decent compared to 27 percent feeling it is unfair and discriminatory
Looking at these polls (all done by Rasmussen), I don’t see anything in Barack Obama’s liberal agenda that falls in with what mainstream America believes. Conservatives and Republicans stand with the country on those issues. Here are some areas where we Republicans and conservatives feel change is desperately needed.
Some high schools will spend a week teaching you how to put a condom on (the directions are on the wrapper), but will barely give 2 weeks to fiscal responsibility—God forbid an entire YEAR—teaching students incredibly important real-world things like how to do your taxes, manage a personal budget, and use credit responsibly? And everyone wonders why we have a 10 trillion dollar national debt and we’re in the middle of a financial crisis. Nobody knows how to manage money responsibly! I guess that English class semester on Greek mythology was more important. Speaking of fiscal responsibility, maybe we should send our bills to Washington D.C? Ridiculous suggestion, but where do we draw the line on bailouts? Oh wait; there shouldn’t be a line, because there’s no place in the constitution that says it is government’s responsibility to give money to companies when they’re having trouble. That would be liberal, activist lawyers/judges who have milked the “general welfare” clause of the constitution for all it’s worth.
Why is a picture of Jesus in a flask of urine (“P*ss Christ” by Andres Serrano) award-winning art, yet a political cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban is completely taboo? Both are figureheads of widely followed religions, but with the liberal agenda Jesus degradation equals free speech. Muhammad degradation equals offensive and divisive.
Education is key in our country. America spends the most money in the world on education, but with mediocre results. Why? I’ve had some incredible professors, and I want their pay to reflect that. Keeping lax educators in the system (thanks to Obama-supporting teachers’ unions) just drags down pay and incentives for quality educators and robs students of the best instructors they could possibly get. When did teachers’ job security and tenure become more important than student success and quality education?
I agree, this country does need change, but I believe us conservatives reflect the attitudes of the country as a whole and offer real solutions and the right change to get this country heading the right way.
-57 to 27 percent of the country would prefer less government services and lower taxes
-72 percent of Americans think that people moving to this country should adopt our culture
-69 percent of Americans feel the income tax system is unfair in that it taxes earnings rather than spending
-62 percent of Americans feel the country is fair and decent compared to 27 percent feeling it is unfair and discriminatory
Looking at these polls (all done by Rasmussen), I don’t see anything in Barack Obama’s liberal agenda that falls in with what mainstream America believes. Conservatives and Republicans stand with the country on those issues. Here are some areas where we Republicans and conservatives feel change is desperately needed.
Some high schools will spend a week teaching you how to put a condom on (the directions are on the wrapper), but will barely give 2 weeks to fiscal responsibility—God forbid an entire YEAR—teaching students incredibly important real-world things like how to do your taxes, manage a personal budget, and use credit responsibly? And everyone wonders why we have a 10 trillion dollar national debt and we’re in the middle of a financial crisis. Nobody knows how to manage money responsibly! I guess that English class semester on Greek mythology was more important. Speaking of fiscal responsibility, maybe we should send our bills to Washington D.C? Ridiculous suggestion, but where do we draw the line on bailouts? Oh wait; there shouldn’t be a line, because there’s no place in the constitution that says it is government’s responsibility to give money to companies when they’re having trouble. That would be liberal, activist lawyers/judges who have milked the “general welfare” clause of the constitution for all it’s worth.
Why is a picture of Jesus in a flask of urine (“P*ss Christ” by Andres Serrano) award-winning art, yet a political cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban is completely taboo? Both are figureheads of widely followed religions, but with the liberal agenda Jesus degradation equals free speech. Muhammad degradation equals offensive and divisive.
Education is key in our country. America spends the most money in the world on education, but with mediocre results. Why? I’ve had some incredible professors, and I want their pay to reflect that. Keeping lax educators in the system (thanks to Obama-supporting teachers’ unions) just drags down pay and incentives for quality educators and robs students of the best instructors they could possibly get. When did teachers’ job security and tenure become more important than student success and quality education?
I agree, this country does need change, but I believe us conservatives reflect the attitudes of the country as a whole and offer real solutions and the right change to get this country heading the right way.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Is the Free Market Dead?
In times of economic turmoil, everybody's looking for somebody to blame. To Democrats, everything is of course George Bush's fault, and in this case they may be partially right. But they're screaming that the free market and capitalism are dead, and more regulation is needed. I beg to differ, and would argue that regulation caused this crisis in the first place. The President had a responsibility to point out shaky businesses and shady accounting to the public, and then let the free market take care of those businesses as they'd see their stock value fall, forcing them to clean up their act, lest they go out of business. In that way, President Bush failed to keep the public informed about companies who were not operating properly.
What all this economic crisis boils down to is people defaulting on their mortgages. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are companies that purchase debt (mortgages) from banks so the banks can have more cash on hand and can then make more loans. These big companies purchased a lot of that debt, and many individuals who owed money were unable to pay it. Like I said, it all boils down to individuals defaulting on their loans. This happened for two reasons:
1) People were living outside their means. When you bite off more than you can chew, you aren't able to pay everything you owe, so this is a lesson in only purchasing what you can afford.
2) Regulation created the possibility for people to purchase houses that really couldn't afford them. The big kicker was the Community Reinvestment Act passed in 1977, and especially the tweaks the Clinton administration added to it. His goals were to emphasize "performance over paperwork", by extending credit to inner city communities. The goal was to give credit to low-income people and raise them up; a reasonable goal of government, but good intentions can lead to problems. As Janet Reno of the Justice Department stated:
In other words, the Clinton administration was so hell-bent on preventing loan discrimination, they forgot that, statistically speaking, the groups that were "discriminated against" have statistically bad credit. So go ahead and force banks to loan to low-income, inner city minorities. There's a reason certain people were not granted loans, because they had bad credit. Just don't be surprised when these people that banks had to give loans to (because of Clinton's enforcement) default on their loans and can't make the payments. Big institutions were buying all this potentially bad debt, and here we sit at the financial crisis.
I'm not paying $700 billion in taxpayer funded bailout to help out people who lived outside their means and have to move into a smaller apartment, or to bailout companies who make profit by purchasing bad debt trying to turn a profit on it and cook their books to make it look like the debt isn't as bad as it seems. I'll take the hit in my IRA, because this sets a terrible precedent and sends the message that big companies (too big to fail?) don't have to worry about risk, because if things go bad the government will bail them out. They got too big and too risky, now they have to pay the consequences. Market corrections do that; businesses that were too risky in good times fail and smart ones succeed. We're doing the country a disservice by helping out the unwise ones. Even if we have to take a hit now, we'll all be better off in the long run.
Solution:
1) Get rid of the bad regulations that extend l0ans to bad credit individuals/businesses.
2) More transparency in these large companies that deal in debt purchases.
3) We need more oversight, rather than regulation, so investors can see exactly what's going on and can make wise decisions and the government can inform us of potentially risky business and the free market will keep people from making those bad investments and likewise improve the companies in question.
What all this economic crisis boils down to is people defaulting on their mortgages. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are companies that purchase debt (mortgages) from banks so the banks can have more cash on hand and can then make more loans. These big companies purchased a lot of that debt, and many individuals who owed money were unable to pay it. Like I said, it all boils down to individuals defaulting on their loans. This happened for two reasons:
1) People were living outside their means. When you bite off more than you can chew, you aren't able to pay everything you owe, so this is a lesson in only purchasing what you can afford.
2) Regulation created the possibility for people to purchase houses that really couldn't afford them. The big kicker was the Community Reinvestment Act passed in 1977, and especially the tweaks the Clinton administration added to it. His goals were to emphasize "performance over paperwork", by extending credit to inner city communities. The goal was to give credit to low-income people and raise them up; a reasonable goal of government, but good intentions can lead to problems. As Janet Reno of the Justice Department stated:
“Today’s actions demonstrate that we
will tackle lending discrimination wherever and
in whatever form it appears. No loan is exempt,
no bank is immune. For those who thumb their
nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.” (article here)
In other words, the Clinton administration was so hell-bent on preventing loan discrimination, they forgot that, statistically speaking, the groups that were "discriminated against" have statistically bad credit. So go ahead and force banks to loan to low-income, inner city minorities. There's a reason certain people were not granted loans, because they had bad credit. Just don't be surprised when these people that banks had to give loans to (because of Clinton's enforcement) default on their loans and can't make the payments. Big institutions were buying all this potentially bad debt, and here we sit at the financial crisis.
I'm not paying $700 billion in taxpayer funded bailout to help out people who lived outside their means and have to move into a smaller apartment, or to bailout companies who make profit by purchasing bad debt trying to turn a profit on it and cook their books to make it look like the debt isn't as bad as it seems. I'll take the hit in my IRA, because this sets a terrible precedent and sends the message that big companies (too big to fail?) don't have to worry about risk, because if things go bad the government will bail them out. They got too big and too risky, now they have to pay the consequences. Market corrections do that; businesses that were too risky in good times fail and smart ones succeed. We're doing the country a disservice by helping out the unwise ones. Even if we have to take a hit now, we'll all be better off in the long run.
Solution:
1) Get rid of the bad regulations that extend l0ans to bad credit individuals/businesses.
2) More transparency in these large companies that deal in debt purchases.
3) We need more oversight, rather than regulation, so investors can see exactly what's going on and can make wise decisions and the government can inform us of potentially risky business and the free market will keep people from making those bad investments and likewise improve the companies in question.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Palin Column
For those of you who missed it, here's my column that appeared in the SDSU Collegian last week:
Who would have thought that a former mayor of a town smaller than Brookings could be on a presidential ticket? John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin of Alaska surprised everyone, including Palin's family. She fishes, snowmobiles, has a pilot's license and hunts. As Sen. Fred Thompson put it at the GOP convention, "She is the only nominee in the history of either party who knows how to properly field dress a moose . . ." Palin was mayor of Wasilla for six years and governor of Alaska for two, so why do I think she's actually qualified to be on this presidential ticket? I'm not saying that she has tons of experience, but neither does Barack Obama. His experience amounts to maneuvering his way to success in the very corrupt Chicago political system, being a state legislator and Illinois senator for two years and announcing his candidacy for president after 143 days in the Senate. And remember: he's running for the top dog position.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has more executive experience than all of the rest of the tickets combined. It's easy for Obama, McCain and Biden to sit and debate legislation and cast their vote, passing laws and resolutions. Well, someone has to make those things happen, and that person is Sarah Palin. That's what executive experience is: execution of laws and orders. Talking big is easy, but actually making things happen is a great deal more difficult.
Not only does Palin have more executive experience, but the McCain/Palin ticket truly represents the ticket of change and Washington shakeup. Look at Obama/Biden. Sure, Obama would be the first African American, which is definitely change, but he proposes a return to '70s style nanny-state government that no amount of rich people can be taxed to pay for. Obama never breaks party line in his votes, which doesn't show me that he's "tired of same-old partisan politics." Not to mention he became top dog in a very corrupt Chicago political arena, rampant with back door deals and bribes. Obama went on to pick a conventional running mate: Biden, a career politician who also rarely breaks party lines. The Obamas are quite rich, whereas Palin had to elope with her husband because they couldn't afford a wedding.
The McCain/Palin ticket offers much more reform. It's led by an experienced political maverick who does what he feels is right, regardless of party lines. And backup president to the most experienced person in the campaign is Sarah Palin, a woman who isn't afraid to give the finger to her own party when they act stupid and corrupt. Just ask Ted Stevens (R-AK), whose $350 million bridge-to-nowhere earmark was vetoed in Alaska by none other than Palin, which is just one example of Palin's corruption purging. She's gone up against corruption in both parties and won. Some may criticize the fact that she was a former sportscaster, but let's not forget the last Republican sportscaster/actor that ran for President: Ronald Reagan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)