Spending Away the Civilization!

Great insight by Peter Morici (Twitter @pmorici1) a a widely published columnist and a professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland School.  Sign up to read more of his stuff if you like this!

"If growth continues at 1, 2 or even 3 percent, then the weight of the baby boom retiring on federal entitlements will push federal deficits through the ceiling in the next decade.

"Higher taxes won’t help much. If tax rates are too high, successful people work less and take their skills elsewhere. Technology companies and financial institutions--where the real fortunes are made these days--can park their patents and profits in Ireland or some other low-tax jurisdiction.

"Sooner or later, Washington won’t be able to continue borrowing. Just as unions and banks will now tussle over whether pensioners or bondholders should have first claim on Detroit’s remaining revenues, Washington can dicker with Beijing over whether the Social Security checks should go out or the Middle Kingdom gets all the interest due on its holdings of U.S. bonds.

"At that point, we can auction off the Grand Canyon and spend the Fourth of July remembering what a great civilization we spent away."
 

This makes me Laugh!

 From a major university of higher learning web site! 

"Graduating with student loans? In addition to mandatory online exit counseling, Scholarships & Financial Aid is offering student loan repayment workshops to help you better understand the repayment process." 

The part I laughed about was the "mandatory online exit counseling".  Just strikes me as funny that only the intellectually superior nincompoops that fill the hallowed halls of academia would connect online counseling in the same sentence!  I mean really what could go wrong with that!  

The second part that caused a smile was the, " . . . understanding the repayment process" comment.  Is there really a person who graduates with a four your degree from a major university that doesn't understand you have to repay your student loans?  Well sadly I fear the answer is yes!

Remember these are the folks who shape the thinking of our brilliant American students every day!

You just have to laugh at his stupidity!

The Stupidity Continues!

Please send a copy to all taxing authorities of the "Goose that laid the Golden Eggs".  Phil Michelson wins a bit over $2,000,000 for his work in the UK at the Scottish and British Opens in the last few weeks.  After being taken to the cleaners by the UK, California, and US Phil nets a little less than $900,000.  The taxing authorities confiscated over 61% of his earnings.  Phil has options, much like John Galt, he can move or simply leave the profession.  Who could blame him!

What makes me laugh?

Anthony Weiner looking into the camera, lying to the folks he wants to elect him Mayor of New York City, while continuing his disgusting sexually perverted habit.   What makes this funny is that  intellectual nincompoops in NYC may well elect him!

What makes me Laugh?

A President who was raised by Communists, who has never held a job that wasn't funded by donations (community organizer) or other people's tax money, who now lives opulently off of the American public, who has become wealthy through the deeds of others on his behalf, going around the country making speeches about how to grow the economy!

Who Should Prepare Lesson Plans for Public Schools?

Bill Neinast

IN PERSPECTIVE

There was an interesting discussion at the Brenham Independent School District Board of Trustees meeting last week.  The discussion was over who should prepare lesson plans.  Should it be the teachers or unknown bureaucrats of unknown lineage in unknown hideaways?

The wrong question, however, was being debated.  The question should be why instead of who.  Why are lesson plans required?

Not too long ago, public schools were expected to prepare children for life by teaching the three Rs--reading, righting, and rithmetic.  The schools were funded with taxes on property in the district and controlled by local property owners.

Students passed or failed on the judgment of their teachers and there were no “social promotions” to keep failing students from “losing self esteem.”

Graduates of that system were able to communicate among themselves orally and in writing and were able to cipher (youngsters may have to find the meaning of that word in a dictionary, if any such are still around) well enough to make change even when the computer operated cash register is down.  Those graduates were able to construct huge military bases almost over night, to build the largest, most deadly military force in history, invent the computer and nuclear weapons, and on and on.

After the big war, however, things began to change in the education community.  Learning the three Rs was no longer sufficient.  Now every student had to be prepared to earn a college degree.  Every student meant every child of school age.  

Mentally disabled or learning challenged children had the right to be in the class rooms of their age group and they had to be taught at the same level.  This was the genesis of the dumbing down in education where instruction had to be geared to the lowest level in the class room.

Concomitant with this move to teach to the lowest level was the curtailment of teachers’ authority to maintain discipline and decorum in the class room.  To  publicly humiliate or punish a student might hurt his or her self esteem.

Then it was noticed that some city schools were more modern and nicer than the rural schools with smaller tax bases and that the city teachers were being paid more than their country cousins.

That was not “fair,” so more money had to be funneled into those poor school districts.  The only source for that money at the time was the state government.

So the big guys in Austin who are very magnanimous with other people’s money stepped in to equalize the system.  Big Mistake!  With money comes control.  

Government bureaucrats are not going to ladle out money without the authority to direct and supervise how that money is spent.  And how will they know if the money is spent wisely?  By testing, of course. 

The old testing or teachers’ judgment is no longer reliable.  Only smart bureaucrats isolated from the classrooms can develop tests to discern if the students have really learned whatever it is that they were being taught. 

If too many students from one school fail the tests from on high, it is obvious that neither the teachers nor their supervisors are doing a good job.  So to incentivize   them, we will prepare and require more tests.

These tests then changed character very quickly.  They were no longer viewed as tests of students knowledge, but were tests of teachers ability to impart knowledge.  Failing grades are now the fault of teachers, not of students.

When teacher employability, promotion, and salary became dependent on the grades of their students on tests developed by personnel outside their schools, instruction had to change.  School text books became largely irrelevant if they did not relate directly to those foreign tests.

So teachers can no longer teach to the texts, they have to teach to the tests.  This is a big difference.  The teachers can have a text book in front of them and know how to impart the knowledge in that text to their students.  Those foreign made tests looming at the end of the semester, however, might emphasize things in the text different from what teachers think is important,

So forget what’s in the text, just make sure the students know what bureaucrats think is important.  In other words, teachers must teach to the tests.

The best way to do that is to follow lesson plans developed by bureaucrats on the same plane as the bureaucrats who draft the tests.

That is why the question should be why rather than who.

So here’s the perspective.

Local control of schools in Texas is a fiction.  To keep funds rolling in from higher sources, local schools must bow toward Austin every morning and pray for guidance on how the bureaucrats want the students taught.

We asked for it. We got it.  We must live with it.  There is no turning back. Government bureaucracies are the most intransigent things on earth and no school wants to bite the hand that feeds it.

If a bet is ever proposed on what is more permanent, the pyramids of Egypt or government bureaucracies, put your money on the bureaucracies.

The Mushy Foreign Policy of the United States under Obama

IN PERSPECTIVE

by Bill Neinast

Commentator Charles Krauthammer and Power Line blogger Attorney Paul Mirengoff characterize President Obama’s foreign policy the same way.  They call it mush.

That may be a bit harsh, as mush is defined as a soft, wet, pulpy mass.

  Conversely, there may be some basis for the observation.   What can be deciphered from the conflicting signals emanating from the administration is a mess rather than a mass.

The difficulty in discussing the Obama foreign policy is determining the content of the policy.  The bed rock of foreign affairs is to protect the country from foreign invasion or control and to protect or promote our vital interests.

Currently, the primary vital interest of the country is the preservation and protection of access to energy, particularly from the Mid East.  Today, that interest is inextricably tied to the threat of foreign control or invasion, like the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York, from radical Muslims.

How much energy, i.e. oil, we have to import depends on how much of the need can be satisfied from domestic sources.  Because of significant improvements in recovery techniques in old fields and the development of new fields, experts in the oil patch believe that we can be close to self sufficiency in a few years.

Reaching that goal of self sufficiency, however, requires opening federal land for development, removing restrictions on improved methods of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), authorizing and completing the Keystone Pipeline, ending the war on coal, etc.

Each of these required actions is vehemently opposed by radical environmentalists who believe we should live and commune with nature as the earliest humans did.  As this group is a  major supporter of the class warriors, the chances of Obama crossing them is slim at best.

This means that we will have to continue to rely on oil from the Mid-east many years into the future.  This means, in turn, that we will continue to bow and kiss the rings of the Muslim potentates controlling that oil.

Dealing with the threat or possibility of a Muslim “invasion” is even trickier.    During his first months in office and before he had even a clue as to the complexities of foreign affairs, Obama made his apology throughout much of the world. 

He figuratively beat his chest and said, “We’re sorry.  We’re sorry we provided a shield for you through the years and funneled trillions of American taxpayer dollars into your coffers.  Forgive us and we will relinquish our spot as leader of the pack.”

If those speeches did anything, they established the United States as a severely weakened player on the international football field.

Heeding this new posture of the formerly strong country in North America, the Muslim Brotherhood openly took up arms against Hosni Mubarak.

Mubarak was the dictator of the largest Muslim country on the planet, but he was a staunch friend of the United States and was in the forefront of maintaining peace with Israel.  Barak’s response was to throw Mubarak under the bus by suggesting that he resign and to welcome the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood through the “democratic election” of Mohammed Morsi. 

When millions of Egyptians began to protest the movements of Morsi toward a Muslim dictatorship under Sharia law, Obama’s response was to suggest negotiations.  Then when the Egyptian military comes to the aid of the protestors,   we take no action to keep the Muslim Brotherhood in check, but suggest negotiations instead.

The Suez Canal is in Egypt.  Keeping that vital link in the supply line of oil from Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries in friendly hands seems to have no apparent effect on the Obama team’s involvement.

Similarly, in Libya when the rebels attempting to overthrow Mummer Gadaffi, a recognized enemy of the United States, requested assistance, Obama suggested a no fly zone, but then “led from behind” and let France and England do the work.

Possibly the worst wiggle in our Mid-east policies, however, was Obama’s bluster of establishing a “red line” in Syria.  Threatening involvement if President Basher al-Assad used chemical weapons against those intent on deposing him.  

The use of those weapons has finally been acknowledged by Obama, but where is his promised reaction?  

So here’s the perspective.

Say what you will about President George W. Bush.  There is no question, however, that he said what he meant and did what he said.

Other countries knew exactly what the United States wanted and that it would do what its leaders said under Bush.  

Today, the rest of the world has no clue as to what we expect or whether we will do what we say.

That’s a heck of a way to run a country.