A good friend who epitomizes the American Dream and I attended our first Tea Party on April 15th. My friend who immigrated to the U.S. from Europe after World War Two obtained a college education and earned an Engineering Degree and then entered the U.S. Air Force. He courageously served our country as a pilot in Vietnam and has had a very successful career following his retirement. I also served my country as a young Marine and though I was never in harms way it was a life changing experience. We both enjoyed the event and admired the commitment and respect displayed by so many good citizens. Today I received an email from a dear friend that included a link to the following YouTube which is well worth watching.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Aiken's Bringing Back the Constitution
NBC Augusta 26 had an interesting report on a new group being formed in Aiken. The group will have a meeting at O'Dell Week's tomorrow between 6:00 and 7:00 PM . Follow the link below to read the article and view the video.
Aiken's bringing back the Constitution NBC Augusta 26 news, weather, sports, community, entertainment, shopping for Augusta, Georgia Local News
Aiken's bringing back the Constitution NBC Augusta 26 news, weather, sports, community, entertainment, shopping for Augusta, Georgia Local News
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Health Care in a Free Society
The following is an excerpt from an article in Imprimis, Free subscriptions to Imprimis ara available from the website.
Health Care in a Free Society
PAUL RYAN is in his sixth term as a member of Congress, representing Wisconsin's First Congressional District. He is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. A graduate of Miami University in Ohio, he and his wife Janna have three children and live in Janesville, Wisconsin.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 13, 2010, in Washington, D.C., at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.
SOMEONE once said that before there was the New Deal, there was the Wisconsin Deal. In my home state, the University of Wisconsin was an early hotbed of progressivism, whose goal was to reorder society along lines other than those of the Constitution. The best known Wisconsin progressive in American politics was Robert LaFollette. “Fighting Bob,” as he was called, was a Republican—as was Theodore Roosevelt, another early progressive. Today we tend to associate progressivism mostly with Democrats, and trace it back to Woodrow Wilson. But it had its roots in both parties.
The social and political programs of the progressives came in on two great waves: the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. Today, President Obama often invokes progressivism and hopes to generate its third great wave of public policy. In thinking about what this would mean, we need look no farther than the health care reform program he is promoting along with the leadership in Congress.more
“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.
Health Care in a Free Society
PAUL RYAN is in his sixth term as a member of Congress, representing Wisconsin's First Congressional District. He is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. A graduate of Miami University in Ohio, he and his wife Janna have three children and live in Janesville, Wisconsin.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 13, 2010, in Washington, D.C., at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.
SOMEONE once said that before there was the New Deal, there was the Wisconsin Deal. In my home state, the University of Wisconsin was an early hotbed of progressivism, whose goal was to reorder society along lines other than those of the Constitution. The best known Wisconsin progressive in American politics was Robert LaFollette. “Fighting Bob,” as he was called, was a Republican—as was Theodore Roosevelt, another early progressive. Today we tend to associate progressivism mostly with Democrats, and trace it back to Woodrow Wilson. But it had its roots in both parties.
The social and political programs of the progressives came in on two great waves: the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. Today, President Obama often invokes progressivism and hopes to generate its third great wave of public policy. In thinking about what this would mean, we need look no farther than the health care reform program he is promoting along with the leadership in Congress.more
“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Charles Krauthammer on the Age of Obama
Charles Krauthammer has again shown his remarkable intellect in this lecture given at the Heritage Foundation. Go here.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
American Thinker - Comments
This article from the American Thinker captures a phenomenon I have been aware of for a long time. During my Foreign Service career I enjoyed meeting and working with a great number of well educated, highly intelligent individuals with advanced degrees from top rated schools. Many of them were "elitists"and I as well as other managers were often dismayed by their lack of common sense. Fortunately most of them were weeded out before they reached senior management positions.
American Thinker - Comments
Posted using ShareThis
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Deja Vu
It seems to me I heard this song before! If you want some other thoughts that seem as though they were written yesterday I recommend ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Healthcare letter to Americans: Is there another way?
August 2009
Healthcare letter to Americans: Is there another way?
I read an article recently that compared the healthcare reform in
In talking to friends and family, many share concerns regardless of their political allegiance. Almost everyone says we need reform in healthcare but question if the current process will deliver what we need. A sense of hopelessness appears as if this “healthcare mess” is so complicated and so big, that the normal American couldn’t begin to understand the detail.
I do not believe this needs to be the case and have written this letter to help more people be confident and passionate about participating in the reform process. To do, this I believe it is important to:
- Share how the current reform has failed to address the key components of timing, participation, goals and motivation; and
- Offer what could be a true strategic reframing of an industry through an outcome-oriented approach that is led by industry reformers including consumers and physicians not just politicians.
What motivates me? I have worked within healthcare my entire professional career from hospitals to clinical laboratories to pharmaceuticals. This exposure even included time beyond our shores when I spent four years working with the UK National Health Service to modernize its laboratories. Living in
Oakleigh Ryan lives with her family in Janesville, WI with her husband Tobin, and two children. She can be reached at oakleigh@healthcareletter.com or by visiting healthcareletter.com.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
No Winners or Losers
The following letter appeared in the Aiken Standard today. Walter Lamb makes some excellent points Unfortunately the politically correct idea of no winners or losers is already well established in some of our school systems. In the end we will all be losers if we don't make a determined stand. As Walter says: (It is only a matter of time - unless.).
When no one wins or loses
Just this simple rule - where no one wins or loses - protecting our children from the anguish of losing, or being rewarded for a fine effort, teaches the basic rules of socialism and communism. Everyone is equal, that exceptional effort is not worth it, that a person will be "paid" the same no matter how one performs. Not only do we instill an attitude of not striving to be competitive, or be the best that we can be, but the seed has been planted to expect "something for nothing." One of the functions of parenthood is to prepare our young to be able to be self-sustaining. Overprotecting our children does not teach the young how to survive in the real world. Thus, with the expansion of this attitude, it comes as no surprise, the young adults have their hand out, asking, "what's in it for me?"
No bright light needs to come on for one to see the present acceptance of the socialistic happenings in our government today by our younger generations as expected. The work ethic that made our forefathers leave the union-dominated European social structure and become the driving force for a better life is in fast decay. The reward to the unions in GM, the disregard to the rule of law and the utter destruction of our economic strength as a world power by the creation of a debt no nation can endure make us a sitting duck for another fall like the Roman empire.
Yes we have "change," but with it comes a change in government and the basic freedoms we soon can no longer assume will be enforced. Watch and read how the Constitution is being violated and not fought for. Do you feel powerless to do anything? That is what the socialists want you to think. Giving voting power to all the illegal immigrants is another step (supported by ACORN and your tax dollars) our young have voted for. Another example of the "something for nothing" principle we are teaching.
Freedom here in America seems no longer worth fighting for, as it was in the near past. And if we are not willing to fight for it, we will assuredly lose it.
Identifying our enemy rallies the American spirit. Do not count on the enemy to create another Sept. 11. We are being defeated from within. Our attitude, our complacency, our lack of involvement, a massive corrupt government, bring just one conclusion. It is only a matter of time - unless.
Walter W. Lamb
Aiken
Saturday, May 30, 2009
School Choice Is the New Civil Rights Struggle by Wall Street Journal
It seems unlikely that readers of this blog will see the following article in the local papers. A link to the Wall Street Journal's very interesting article appears in the WSJ widget that appears in the right hand column of this site. To to be certain that readers get to it I have posted a teaser below.
FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
School Choice Is the New Civil Rights Struggle
A word of support from the president could transform local politics on the issue.
By BRENDAN MINITER
Getting arrested doesn't normally bolster a politician's credibility. But when South Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford told me recently that he saw the inside of a jail cell 73 times, he did so to make a point. As a youth, Mr. Ford cut his political teeth in tumultuous 1960s civil-rights protests.Today this black Democrat says the new civil-rights struggle is about the quality of instruction in public schools, and that to receive a decent education African-Americans need school choice. He wants the president's help. "We need choice like Obama has. He can send his kids to any school he wants."
Mr. Ford was once like many Democrats on education -- a reliable vote against reforms that would upend the system. But over the past three and a half years he's studied how school choice works and he's now advocating tax credits and scholarships that parents can spend on public or private schools.more
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Global Warming
The following article appears in the Augusta Chronicle today:
Colleges fall for global warming hype
Letter to the Editor
Saturday, May 16, 2009
I was sickened and scared when I read David Skorton's (president of Cornell University) guest column "Save economy -- stop global warming" (May 7).
Sign up for breaking news alerts from The Chronicle
He says he represents a consortium of 600 college and university presidents representing 5 million students. He states manmade global warming is a proven fact, and that President Obama's stimulus package will save the economy and the climate. He is proud that he and 599 other university leaders are going to delude our students into the notion that their perception is the right one.
Hogwash. There is not a consensus among scientists on the cause of warming, which has reversed since the peak in 1999; the Earth's temperature has varied for 5 billion years. And there is definitely ample evidence that forced efforts to "green" our country with carbon credits, and mandatory solar and wind power goals, will be unattainable and will have horrific negative impacts on our economy for years.
But the most damage this kind of university group-think will have is to squelch the creativity of our future. Colleges are supposed to educate our children so they can investigate, evaluate and make decisions for themselves. Yes, they should teach climate science, economics, government and other basics -- but without bias. This drivel is indoctrination and an abomination to education. They should be embarrassed, and it should not be allowed.
On the Climate Commitment Web site, I was saddened to find that Bud Peterson, president of my alma mater Georgia Tech, has signed on to this social agenda. It is a travesty that the premier engineering university of the Southeast is pursuing this instead of focusing on teaching proved scientific and engineering techniques and letting Tech's graduates evaluate and confront reality.
It kills me to say "Go Dawgs," but according to the Web site, the University of Georgia's president has resisted the pressure to succumb to this politically correct organization. Good for UGA; our flagship liberal arts university is staying true to education and avoiding politics.
Steve Sheetz, Martinez
Colleges fall for global warming hype
Letter to the Editor
Saturday, May 16, 2009
I was sickened and scared when I read David Skorton's (president of Cornell University) guest column "Save economy -- stop global warming" (May 7).
Sign up for breaking news alerts from The Chronicle
He says he represents a consortium of 600 college and university presidents representing 5 million students. He states manmade global warming is a proven fact, and that President Obama's stimulus package will save the economy and the climate. He is proud that he and 599 other university leaders are going to delude our students into the notion that their perception is the right one.
Hogwash. There is not a consensus among scientists on the cause of warming, which has reversed since the peak in 1999; the Earth's temperature has varied for 5 billion years. And there is definitely ample evidence that forced efforts to "green" our country with carbon credits, and mandatory solar and wind power goals, will be unattainable and will have horrific negative impacts on our economy for years.
But the most damage this kind of university group-think will have is to squelch the creativity of our future. Colleges are supposed to educate our children so they can investigate, evaluate and make decisions for themselves. Yes, they should teach climate science, economics, government and other basics -- but without bias. This drivel is indoctrination and an abomination to education. They should be embarrassed, and it should not be allowed.
On the Climate Commitment Web site, I was saddened to find that Bud Peterson, president of my alma mater Georgia Tech, has signed on to this social agenda. It is a travesty that the premier engineering university of the Southeast is pursuing this instead of focusing on teaching proved scientific and engineering techniques and letting Tech's graduates evaluate and confront reality.
It kills me to say "Go Dawgs," but according to the Web site, the University of Georgia's president has resisted the pressure to succumb to this politically correct organization. Good for UGA; our flagship liberal arts university is staying true to education and avoiding politics.
Steve Sheetz, Martinez
Monday, May 11, 2009
Letter of Amends from a Recovering Liberal in Berkeley
There follows the first part of a letter printed in American Thinker.com. To read the entire letter go here
Letter of Amends from a Recovering Liberal in Berkeley
By Robin
Dear friends, family, loved ones, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, my brother in law, Sam, and my cousin Joe: I am sorry and you were right.These are not easy words for anyone to utter, much less a leftist from Berkeley, or a recovering leftist, that is. Even though I've been in recovery for 14 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days, leftists are always right in your face, in an I-hate-you-if-you-disagree sort of way. Hence, this letter of amends to all the people I've lectured, scolded, ranted and raved at, and otherwise annoyed during my 30 plus years of "progressive" politics.My... (Read Full Article)
Letter of Amends from a Recovering Liberal in Berkeley
By Robin
Dear friends, family, loved ones, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, my brother in law, Sam, and my cousin Joe: I am sorry and you were right.These are not easy words for anyone to utter, much less a leftist from Berkeley, or a recovering leftist, that is. Even though I've been in recovery for 14 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days, leftists are always right in your face, in an I-hate-you-if-you-disagree sort of way. Hence, this letter of amends to all the people I've lectured, scolded, ranted and raved at, and otherwise annoyed during my 30 plus years of "progressive" politics.My... (Read Full Article)
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Aiken Standard Accused of Cheap Shots
The following letter from Scott Singer appeared in the Aiken Standard today.
Quote
On numerous occasions the Standard has espoused the need for us to be civil and tolerant toward others and their point of views and to refrain from personal character attacks. Hence, I found the tone and tenor of today's (May 1)editorial regarding Mark Sanford's refusal to accept the stimulus money under the terms set forth by the Obama Administration to be extremely hypocritical and certainly not in keeping with this purported ideal.
I hope we can agree that reasonable people can draw different conclusions based on a set of facts and circumstances. I for one believe the unparalleled amount of debt we are rolling up as a Nation in the name of "stimulus" is the greatest threat to our long-term prosperity as a people, which if left unchecked will eventually destroy the economic and political fabric upon which America is built. You may disagree. But that makes neither one of us bad people.
To categorically attribute the Governor's position on the stimulus money as an effort "to stroke his 2012 Presidential aspirations..." is simply irresponsible. Need I remind you that this is the man who stepped down as U.S.
Congressman after six years because he said he believed in term limits; the millionaire who slept on a cot in his Congressional office and returned his housing allowance to the U.S. Treasury. Certainly you don't believe Sanford did these things way back in the early 90's in order to score political points. You may not like him, but Mark Sanford is the same man today that he has been throughout his public life; a true leader that does what he thinks is right rather than what is politically expedient.
It appears that in your zeal to support public education (certainly a worthy goal) you have resorted to cheap shots and even seem to be willing to trash the SC Constitution, which vests certain powers in the Office of the Governor.
Categorically dismissing the concerns of fiscal conservatives by attributing the Governor's actions to selfish motives does nothing to build trust and thus in the long run is counterproductive to your ultimate goal.
Quote
On numerous occasions the Standard has espoused the need for us to be civil and tolerant toward others and their point of views and to refrain from personal character attacks. Hence, I found the tone and tenor of today's (May 1)editorial regarding Mark Sanford's refusal to accept the stimulus money under the terms set forth by the Obama Administration to be extremely hypocritical and certainly not in keeping with this purported ideal.
I hope we can agree that reasonable people can draw different conclusions based on a set of facts and circumstances. I for one believe the unparalleled amount of debt we are rolling up as a Nation in the name of "stimulus" is the greatest threat to our long-term prosperity as a people, which if left unchecked will eventually destroy the economic and political fabric upon which America is built. You may disagree. But that makes neither one of us bad people.
To categorically attribute the Governor's position on the stimulus money as an effort "to stroke his 2012 Presidential aspirations..." is simply irresponsible. Need I remind you that this is the man who stepped down as U.S.
Congressman after six years because he said he believed in term limits; the millionaire who slept on a cot in his Congressional office and returned his housing allowance to the U.S. Treasury. Certainly you don't believe Sanford did these things way back in the early 90's in order to score political points. You may not like him, but Mark Sanford is the same man today that he has been throughout his public life; a true leader that does what he thinks is right rather than what is politically expedient.
It appears that in your zeal to support public education (certainly a worthy goal) you have resorted to cheap shots and even seem to be willing to trash the SC Constitution, which vests certain powers in the Office of the Governor.
Categorically dismissing the concerns of fiscal conservatives by attributing the Governor's actions to selfish motives does nothing to build trust and thus in the long run is counterproductive to your ultimate goal.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Accepting $$ is about Ideology
The debate over the so-called stimulus money seems to be a difference in ideology. Recently I read an article bashing Gov. Sanford for being too ideological. There is a group of people in this debate that resents the governor for forming a plan for this state based on his ideas as to what our government's responsibilities to its citizens should be.
Mr. Editor you fall into this group, by your statement "Gov. Sanford doesn't realize today's needs." What you are really saying, "Sir", is that your ideology for government differs from that of Gov. Sanford.
Let me point out that difference in ideas is the reason we are Americans, thanks to our great forefathers. They were very ideological. First they had the idea that freedom was more important than security, so they told the King of England they were not for sale after he offered a very attractive "stimulus package."
They also had the radical idea to limit self-government by drawing up a Constitution that guaranteed these freedoms could not be changed by a popular president with too big of an ego. You see Mr. Editor our founding fathers would not agree with your ideas that the so-called "needs of the people" trump the freedoms that we enjoy and its not the government's responsibility to meet anybody's needs, however it is mandatory for government to protect the rights of individuals to have the freedom to succeed or fail; to meet their own needs or not meet them as they see fit to do so.
Unfortunately for the last 40 years an ideology has emerged in this country that is threatening the foundation laid by our forefathers. These are the ideas that public schools should educate children at all costs. The idea that government is to be parents, God and savior. This ideology has created a
Gov. Sanford is not against education. I share his ideology on things wrong with education in this state. First, for the last 20 years the number of students in
The loudest out cry for taking the stimulus comes from embedded bureaucrats looking after their self-interest or politicians looking to buy voters.
I salute Governor Sanford.
Jet Beckum
Aiken
Sunday, April 5, 2009
A stimulus option for South Carolina by Governor Sanford
There follows part of an email from Governor Sanford concerning his guest column that appeared in the Aiken Standard yesterday.
Dear Friends,
Given the number of conflicting signals that have been sent with regard to my position on the stimulus, I wanted to share with you an op-ed I just wrote that gives a little further explanation on where I stand and why I think it reflects the overall will of most people I've talked to across this state.
If you agree with where we are coming from in pushing to pay down debt and reforming outdated government, rather than simply spending more, I'd ask for your help in talking to friends -- and urging them to contact their House or Senate member and ask them to insist on this from the South Carolina legislature this year.
+++
Op-Ed:
Though we are constitutionally guaranteed free speech, it is illegal to walk into a crowded movie theater and yell the word "fire" if there is not one. Unfortunately much has been suggested over the last few weeks -- as the Democratic National Committee ran ads and Sen. Hugh Leatherman crafted a so-called Senate Finance "chaos" budget -- meant to scare people into believing if my administration didn't walk lockstep with the Obama administration in spending all the stimulus money as Washington thinks best, I would indeed be courting disaster for South Carolinians.
I believe this is the wrong way to push for the spending they want and I understand many people are concerned -- and so I wanted to write to set a few things straight.
Although there is a great temptation to expand my rationale to include what I believe to be the disastrous long-term consequences that come to our nation in spending money we don't have -- and in issuing yet more debt to solve a problem that was created by too much debt -- I will stick with why I believe the Obama administration's package doesn't work for South Carolina as configured, and why I think it is so important to custom-fit stimulus efforts to the state in question.
A few facts first: Last year state government spent $19 billion, and this year we will spend $21 billion -- an 11 percent increase without the stimulus money we have debated over the last few weeks. Even education spending will go from $3.3 to $3.5 billion, a 4 percent increase -- and do any of these numbers strike you as the sort of numbers that fit with chaos?
Common sense dictates that when you're in a hole it's vital you stop digging. Requiring our state to spend beyond its means for the next 24 months to be eligible for all the stimulus moneys guarantees that South Carolina will dig itself a $740 million financial hole. Who helps us then? Do we raise taxes, and thereby weaken our competitiveness relative to other states and countries -- or do we just summarily end programs for some of the neediest of our state?
Or are we to plan on yet another round of stimulus windfall from Washington in two years -- again, with money we don't have? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I do know the $740 million budget hole created would be the largest such hole in South Carolina state financial history.
Our grandparents' notion of moderation in all things is especially important when one considers the financing of a state. More than $8 billion of total stimulus effort is projected to come to South Carolina. We proposed taking about 10 percent of this and applying it to paying down state debt. I don't understand how that could be considered unreasonable or the kind of effort that would create disaster. This stimulus is more than our state budget spends in an entire year. If a family won a lottery that sent them a windfall larger than their paycheck for the year, the family that actually set something aside to pay down the mortgage or the credit cards would be viewed as prudent.
Why should it be any different for a state, particularly if, as in South Carolina's case, we are fourth in the entire nation in the percentage of our budget that goes not to teachers or health care -- but debt repayment? Eleven percent of every dollar in yearly revenue goes to paying down debt, and we have $20 billion on top of that in unfunded long-term political commitments. Paying these moneys down would give us greater financial latitude in 24 months when the federal gravy train ends to indeed offer more in the way of governmental services. In our case it would pay dividends in the first 24 months alone of $162 million that would be saved in debt service that could go to government service.
Finally, spending all this money relieves the political pressure to make reforms essential to South Carolina being more competitive in the global economy -- and in turn offering more employment and "stimulus" to the national economy. Political forces rarely embrace hard changes, and they never embrace change when new money allows for the possibility of bypassing them.
The easiest of all things would be to take and simply spend all of Washington's well-intended stimulus efforts -- but in our case it would guarantee opportunities lost that I don't think our state can afford.
+++
Hope spring is treating you well, and again, if you agree that we can't just spend our way out of our current economic situation then I'd ask that you forward this to a friend or relative, or pick up the phone and ask them to join us. Also, call or email your South Carolina legislators and ask them to meet us in the middle and find a way to pay down state debt.
These are momentous times, and if enough of us make our voices heard on this front, I believe we can make a difference in shoring up our state's finances so we are better prepared for this economic storm.
Take care,
Mark Sanford
Dear Friends,
Given the number of conflicting signals that have been sent with regard to my position on the stimulus, I wanted to share with you an op-ed I just wrote that gives a little further explanation on where I stand and why I think it reflects the overall will of most people I've talked to across this state.
If you agree with where we are coming from in pushing to pay down debt and reforming outdated government, rather than simply spending more, I'd ask for your help in talking to friends -- and urging them to contact their House or Senate member and ask them to insist on this from the South Carolina legislature this year.
+++
Op-Ed:
Though we are constitutionally guaranteed free speech, it is illegal to walk into a crowded movie theater and yell the word "fire" if there is not one. Unfortunately much has been suggested over the last few weeks -- as the Democratic National Committee ran ads and Sen. Hugh Leatherman crafted a so-called Senate Finance "chaos" budget -- meant to scare people into believing if my administration didn't walk lockstep with the Obama administration in spending all the stimulus money as Washington thinks best, I would indeed be courting disaster for South Carolinians.
I believe this is the wrong way to push for the spending they want and I understand many people are concerned -- and so I wanted to write to set a few things straight.
Although there is a great temptation to expand my rationale to include what I believe to be the disastrous long-term consequences that come to our nation in spending money we don't have -- and in issuing yet more debt to solve a problem that was created by too much debt -- I will stick with why I believe the Obama administration's package doesn't work for South Carolina as configured, and why I think it is so important to custom-fit stimulus efforts to the state in question.
A few facts first: Last year state government spent $19 billion, and this year we will spend $21 billion -- an 11 percent increase without the stimulus money we have debated over the last few weeks. Even education spending will go from $3.3 to $3.5 billion, a 4 percent increase -- and do any of these numbers strike you as the sort of numbers that fit with chaos?
Common sense dictates that when you're in a hole it's vital you stop digging. Requiring our state to spend beyond its means for the next 24 months to be eligible for all the stimulus moneys guarantees that South Carolina will dig itself a $740 million financial hole. Who helps us then? Do we raise taxes, and thereby weaken our competitiveness relative to other states and countries -- or do we just summarily end programs for some of the neediest of our state?
Or are we to plan on yet another round of stimulus windfall from Washington in two years -- again, with money we don't have? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I do know the $740 million budget hole created would be the largest such hole in South Carolina state financial history.
Our grandparents' notion of moderation in all things is especially important when one considers the financing of a state. More than $8 billion of total stimulus effort is projected to come to South Carolina. We proposed taking about 10 percent of this and applying it to paying down state debt. I don't understand how that could be considered unreasonable or the kind of effort that would create disaster. This stimulus is more than our state budget spends in an entire year. If a family won a lottery that sent them a windfall larger than their paycheck for the year, the family that actually set something aside to pay down the mortgage or the credit cards would be viewed as prudent.
Why should it be any different for a state, particularly if, as in South Carolina's case, we are fourth in the entire nation in the percentage of our budget that goes not to teachers or health care -- but debt repayment? Eleven percent of every dollar in yearly revenue goes to paying down debt, and we have $20 billion on top of that in unfunded long-term political commitments. Paying these moneys down would give us greater financial latitude in 24 months when the federal gravy train ends to indeed offer more in the way of governmental services. In our case it would pay dividends in the first 24 months alone of $162 million that would be saved in debt service that could go to government service.
Finally, spending all this money relieves the political pressure to make reforms essential to South Carolina being more competitive in the global economy -- and in turn offering more employment and "stimulus" to the national economy. Political forces rarely embrace hard changes, and they never embrace change when new money allows for the possibility of bypassing them.
The easiest of all things would be to take and simply spend all of Washington's well-intended stimulus efforts -- but in our case it would guarantee opportunities lost that I don't think our state can afford.
+++
Hope spring is treating you well, and again, if you agree that we can't just spend our way out of our current economic situation then I'd ask that you forward this to a friend or relative, or pick up the phone and ask them to join us. Also, call or email your South Carolina legislators and ask them to meet us in the middle and find a way to pay down state debt.
These are momentous times, and if enough of us make our voices heard on this front, I believe we can make a difference in shoring up our state's finances so we are better prepared for this economic storm.
Take care,
Mark Sanford
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Orion-My favorite constellation
Has the U.S. education system failed? Orion has been my favorite constellation for more than 70 years.
Posted: 23 Mar 2009 08:16 PM PDT
Everyone knows that Barack Obama is lost without his teleprompter, but his latest blunder, courtesy of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, via the Corner, suggests that the teleprompter may not be enough unless it includes phonetic spellings. Obama was speaking at a White House roundtable on clean energy systems, and repeatedly saluted Orion Energy Systems, whose CEO, Neal Verfuerth, was present at the event. So Obama referred to "Orion" a number of times. Only problem was, he appeared to be unfamiliar with the word:
This latest episode suggests that Obama's teleprompter should up the ante. Iowahawk obtained exclusive access to the teleprompter's attempt to shake down the Big Guy (Warning, the teleprompter's language can be a little rough):
All terrific press for Orion, except that Obama kept pronouncing the company's name wrong, calling it OAR-ee-on.Unbelievable. Orion is one of the best-known constellations, mostly because it actually looks like its namesake. So evidently we have to add astronomy to history and economics as subjects of which Obama is remarkably ignorant. I'm beginning to fear that our President has below-average knowledge of the world. Not for a President, but for a middle-aged American.
This latest episode suggests that Obama's teleprompter should up the ante. Iowahawk obtained exclusive access to the teleprompter's attempt to shake down the Big Guy (Warning, the teleprompter's language can be a little rough):
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Battling for better education
The following letter from Jet Beckum was published in the Aiken Standard on February 11.
"I recently read a book by Richard Neely (a Supreme Court justice of West Virginia) entitled "Tragedies of Our Own Making." In Mr. Neely's book he points out the reasons for the bankruptcy of this nation. However at the time it was written just a few states were in financial trouble, now it is the entire nation. Mr. Neely said the choices we as citizens make determine the financial problems we are currently witnessing.
His conclusion, the colossal medical cost and expensive health insurance along with crime in the streets, failure of the education system, have stressed the financial strength of our nation. The main culprit is the breakup of the American family.
For example the number of one-parent households has greatly increased in the last 30 years. According, to Mr. Neely, although there are advocates for one-parent family in some circumstances such as cruel or violent marriages the fact is divorce is a main cause of poverty in this nation. In general one parent families' children will have more educational problems more problems with crime related activities. Divorces force more financial burdens on society therefore creating more taxpayer funded programs. Government solutions to family problems are substantially more expensive than private family solution because the infamous inefficiency of governmental bureaucracy.
Mr. Neely points out every time we as private citizens failed to care for our children's needs and ask the government to provide them; we not only put our children at risk but we add to the financial downfall of this country.
Most educators when asked for solutions to our dismal graduation rates in our public high schools often respond with "more money" although we spent far more money on education than do many foreign countries and provide less educated children. Many educators also think only the the poor students are failing in our schools. Mr. Neely says no. Many one-parent children come from affluent communities but have all of the problems associated with the poverty of inner-city children.
America is the best in the world educating adults, most foreign countries send their brightest students here for higher education, however, we are one of the world's worst at educating children. Japan for example provides much more proficient students in high school than does the U.S. at less cost. Mr. Neely attributes this to Japan's strong family tradition. The mother in the Japanese family with children stays at home and acts to facilitate their children's education. It is no wonder that America's home schools are providing some of best educated students in the country.
A few days ago I read in the Aiken Standard that the Aiken Board of Education was inviting the public to a discussion on the future of education. A friend and I attended, to my disappointment, the group for discussion was formed in a semi-circle with its back to the public, they seem to be studying ED 101, but I could not hear since their voices were low with their backs facing us. The group was made up of mostly former school educators and insiders. As I walked to my truck to go home, I wondered about South Carolina's graduation rate of 53.7 percent and I wondered how much longer public taxpayers will put up with public education.
Jet Beckum
Aiken"
"I recently read a book by Richard Neely (a Supreme Court justice of West Virginia) entitled "Tragedies of Our Own Making." In Mr. Neely's book he points out the reasons for the bankruptcy of this nation. However at the time it was written just a few states were in financial trouble, now it is the entire nation. Mr. Neely said the choices we as citizens make determine the financial problems we are currently witnessing.
His conclusion, the colossal medical cost and expensive health insurance along with crime in the streets, failure of the education system, have stressed the financial strength of our nation. The main culprit is the breakup of the American family.
For example the number of one-parent households has greatly increased in the last 30 years. According, to Mr. Neely, although there are advocates for one-parent family in some circumstances such as cruel or violent marriages the fact is divorce is a main cause of poverty in this nation. In general one parent families' children will have more educational problems more problems with crime related activities. Divorces force more financial burdens on society therefore creating more taxpayer funded programs. Government solutions to family problems are substantially more expensive than private family solution because the infamous inefficiency of governmental bureaucracy.
Mr. Neely points out every time we as private citizens failed to care for our children's needs and ask the government to provide them; we not only put our children at risk but we add to the financial downfall of this country.
Most educators when asked for solutions to our dismal graduation rates in our public high schools often respond with "more money" although we spent far more money on education than do many foreign countries and provide less educated children. Many educators also think only the the poor students are failing in our schools. Mr. Neely says no. Many one-parent children come from affluent communities but have all of the problems associated with the poverty of inner-city children.
America is the best in the world educating adults, most foreign countries send their brightest students here for higher education, however, we are one of the world's worst at educating children. Japan for example provides much more proficient students in high school than does the U.S. at less cost. Mr. Neely attributes this to Japan's strong family tradition. The mother in the Japanese family with children stays at home and acts to facilitate their children's education. It is no wonder that America's home schools are providing some of best educated students in the country.
A few days ago I read in the Aiken Standard that the Aiken Board of Education was inviting the public to a discussion on the future of education. A friend and I attended, to my disappointment, the group for discussion was formed in a semi-circle with its back to the public, they seem to be studying ED 101, but I could not hear since their voices were low with their backs facing us. The group was made up of mostly former school educators and insiders. As I walked to my truck to go home, I wondered about South Carolina's graduation rate of 53.7 percent and I wondered how much longer public taxpayers will put up with public education.
Jet Beckum
Aiken"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)