Politically Homeless 5: Peggy Noonan

As I am writing my analysis of why I feel politically homeless, Peggy Noonan comes up with a great article on the basic problem in politics. Take a look!

Article: Third Time

Technorati Tags: Politics, Party Politics, Political Parties, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian

Politically Homeless 4: Libertarian Party

The Libertarian party claims to be the third largest political party in the U.S. today. They tend to lean toward small Constitutionally contained government. I have stated that I view myself as conservative leaning libertarian (notice the little L). I have read a lot about the Libertarian party and have a few issues with their ideals. Here is the breakdown:

Government Size
The Libertarian party has very strong beliefs in the model of limited government. They believe that the size of government should be very small and people should follow the rule of self-responsibility. They only the see the need for limited services such as foreign relations, fire, police, defense, etc.

State/Federal (Federalist)
The Libertarians appear to believe in the concept of states rights. They believe that ALL government should be limited in nature. It appears that they would tend to side with stronger state government instead of stronger federal if they had to choose.

Foreign Policy
It appears that Libertarians believe in a fairly isolationist viewpoint on foreign policy. They believe in free trade among countries. They believe that the United States should stop getting involved in so many international issues and focus on the homeland. They also believe that we could save billions (if not trillions) by not funding every international entity and scheme. For obvious reason, Libertarians tend to be against the United Nations as a government body. Libertarians want to limit federal government so creating a world government is not a good decision.

Taxes/Spending
As I stated earlier, Libertarians believe in low taxes, low spending, and small government. They believe that this will cause the government to have the least impact on the citizens of the country. They have a very conservative view of fiscal policy. Most Libertarians do not agree with the idea of a Federal Income Tax. They believe that the federal government should have more than enough money from fees and tarriffs as it did in the beginnings of our country.

Military Issues
As I stated in foreign policy, they believe that the U.S. should keep their focus at home and not abroad. They tend to keep a very isolationist viewpoint on this. Also, they do not believe in spending the money on fighting. Their basic opinion is have a strong national defense but only utilize it for defensive purposes. Many Libertarians were very against the war in Iraq.

Social Issues
Libertarians follow an approach of let people do what they want to as long as it doesn't affect other people. They take a very liberal approach to personal freedoms. Many believe in legalization of drugs and prostitution as victimless crimes. They do not support government social programs.

Business
Libertarians are very pro-Business. They believe in a laissez-faire style of government when it comes to business. They typically don't believe in the idea of taxing business because "businesses don't pay taxes, people do". They would push for the idea of removing regulation over businesses. They believe that the free market can control business using natural mechanisms.

I tend to side with many of the general principles of Libertarians. I love the idea of a small government and lower taxes. I think allowing business to flourish under decreased regulation would be a very positive economic change. I strongly agree that the government should not be allowed to set price caps/controls in the economy (such as minimum wage). It goes against the idea of capitalism.

I usually break with Libertarians with some of their more anarchic theories. I don't believe that legalizing ALL drugs is a good idea. I don't necessarily agree that all gun controls should be removed (convicted felons should lose that right and people don't need armor piercing rounds). Although I tend to agree that the government should get out of the business of marriage, I believe some controls should still exist (people shouldn't molest children even if that is their sexual preference). I don't completely agree with the isolationist ideals either. I do think that we shouldn't be so involved in the world's problems but that we must remain somewhat engaged.

All in all, I agree with libertarian (little l) concepts. I find that the Libertarian party is too anarchist for my tastes.

Your thoughts on my opinions?

Technorati Tags: Politics, Party Politics, Political Parties, Libertarian

Politically Homeless 3: Democratic Party

Well, I will start this portion of my analysis of the parties with the Democratic party. I must say that I find very little to agree with them on. I think that the Democrats of old were more in touch than the current Democrats are. I believe that there are still a few Democrats who I can relate to like Zell Miller. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the liberal arm of the Democratic party is bent on running these people out. Anyway, here we go.

Government Size
The Democratic party tends to believe that the government should provide a lot of services for the citizenry of the United States. This is the party that brought the U.S. Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, and took a shot at Hillary-care. They tend to believe that the government should always provide a safety net for people and should make sure that no one feels pain.

State/Federal (Federalist)
The Democratic party tend to believe that things should be provided at the Federal level. This position can be pointed out by the fact that many Democrats immediately pointed at the Federal government for the poor response during Katrina. Although the local and state governments had responsibility the Democrats decried the horrible job FEMA did.

Foreign Policy
The basic foreign policy of the Democratic party is make friends with everyone and sign alliances. They believe that no action should be taken without the blessing of the U.N., NATO, or all of our allies. They also tend to lean toward appeasement instead of confrontation. This can be illustrated by President Clinton offering light-water reactors to North Korea in exchange for their "promise" of behaving themselves. In a perfect world, this foreign policy may work but in the real world it shows weakness.

Taxes/Spending
As I stated in the government size section, Democrats believe that the government should be the provider for many services. This of course, points to increased spending which logically points to increased taxes. In my opinion this is not an economically sound concept.

Military Issues
In the foreign policy section I outlined the belief that we should form alliances with everyone and use the "world body" opinion to judge our fights. This attitude tends to push Democrats to not spend as much on military and spend more on social programs. They do not like to utilize the military in a war-fighting mode but prefer they act as a police force. Again, I do not think this projects strength.

Social Issues
As with much of the Democratic mindset this is a place where the government needs to control things. The government needs to handle retirement, medicine, prices, wages, education, etc. They like to legislate social norms instead of trying to change the mindset through intellectual debate.

Business
The Democratic party claims to believe in the American dream but they are the first to attack business. Everytime they need to spend more money they try to either tax evil business or evil rich people. They attack companies like WalMart for not paying their people more. They attack business by constantly trying to increase minimum wage or adding required benefits.

I believe that the Democratic party has a vision. I believe that it is a socialist vision. I want to say that I do not mean that in a negative manner but in the true definition of the word. They would like the government to have strong controls over the economy, industry, jobs, social norms, medicine, etc. They would tax people and then would provide the "necessary" services. This is a socialist mindset. On the political diagram in my previous post they would typically qualify as a Left/Liberal Authoritarian.

I personally have a lot of respect for the socialist/marxist ideas, I just simply don't believe that they work in the real world. Capitalism works even though many times it can be ugly. I would tend to believe that the Democratic party will never be my home.

Your thoughts on my opinions?

Technorati Tags: Politics,Party Politics, Political Parties, Democrats

Politically Homeless 2: Some Definition

As a follow-up to last night's post I want to clarify a few things before I go on my exploration. First of all when I use terms like conservative, liberal, socialist, libertarian, etc. I mean it in the true political sense not with any derrogatory meaning. I like the following diagram to describe politcal leanings instead of the typical right-left dicotomy.



On the same web page they give a great explanation of each of the terms used in the diagram. Take a look. I personally consider myself a conservative leaning libertarian. The "World's Smallest Politcal Quiz" confirms that belief. In my opinion, there is no political party that currently fits that set of beliefs.

I have also decided that I want to use the following categories as rating categories for me:

• Government size
• State/Federal (Federalist argument)
• Foreign policy
• Taxes/Spending
• Military issues
• Social Issues
• Business

So with that I am going to do some research. I will continue to post as I look. I will go through the 3 or 4 "major" parties. As I said, if you have something to add let me know.

Technorati Tags: Party Politics, Political Parties, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarian

Politically Homeless

As I continue to read about decisions that our glorious politicians are making regarding spending our money, energy policy, taxes, and immigration I am coming to the conclusion that I have no political party that I can call home. I thought that the base views of the Republican party were closest to my beliefs but that is definitely proving to not be true.

To start here are a summary points of my political beliefs:

• Government is bureaucratic so it doesn't really do anything efficiently
• Smaller federal government is better from a financial, economic, and personal perspective
• The Federal Government should not interfere in business with some basic exceptions of OSHA, very small portions of EPA, EEOC. Basically enough that we don't have children working in coal mines or people working in life threatening situations unless they are duly informed. But there should not be corporate welfare. If companies can't make on their merits they should not exist
• States rights should outweigh federal rights (As the constitution intended)
• States should be allowed to govern as they see fit with only exceptions as to where the constitution SPECIFICALLY defines federal jurisdiction. This does not include education, roads, health care, retirement accounts, income tax, etc., etc., etc.
• Taxes should be fair for the entire population. Just because people make more does not mean they should pay a higher percentage. Just by paying the same percentage the rich pay more. We should also remove the loopholes such as mortgage tax credits, earned income credits, etc.
• The tax code should not be the largest document in world history!!!
• Competition should be allowed to reign in most markets. This would allow for better schools, cheaper gasoline, more efficient airlines, no tax subsidies for phony rail companies, etc.
• Saving should be encouraged by removing the tax burdens and removing stupid class warfare tactics from investment accounts. Instead of saving the broken social security program encourage and train people how to do it themselves.
• France and Germany are NOT global superpowers and we should not use them as role models to create a welfare state
• The United Nations was designed as a place to discuss issues with other countries not as a government body. Reform it or remove it.
• War is never pretty and should always be a last resort but is sometimes required. Fight to win.
• War is best left to the military and not politicians.
• As Teddy Roosevelt said: "Speak softly and carry a big stick". We need to have the biggest heaviest stick that we can possibly create. We also need to learn how to speak softly.

I have many other opinions but I think this starts the discussion. I am going to try to explore a few of the major parties and why I don't think that they fit the bill. If you have ideas I am open.

Technorati Tags: Party Politics, Political Parties, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians

Finally...

I just read a speech by Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana. The speech was in regards to a plan that he will be proposing in the House regarding immigration reform. This is a topic that has been talked about a lot but I have not heard a solid solution from a politician until now. I encourage you to take a look at this speech (it's kind of long but a great plan).

Transcript of Speech

What are your thoughts? Will you contact your representatives and senators about this plan?

Technorati Tags: Pence, Congress, Immigration, Illegal Immigration

Hypocritical?

With everything that is currently going on in the United States ILLEGAL immigration debate, it is kind of interesting to find out what Mexico's laws are. They make it very difficult for LEGAL immigrants to be part of their society. Yet they want the U.S. to ease policies for ILLEGAL immigrants. Here is an article that describes some of Mexico's laws:

Article: Mexico Works to Bar Non-Natives From Jobs

A little hypocritical?

Technorati Tags: Mexico, Immigration, Illegal Immigration

Is Iran an issue?

I was shocked today when I read the article about Iran preparing to pass a law requiring Muslims to wear specific clothing and requiring non-Muslims to wear badges of their religion. This is very reminiscent of the 1930s and 1940s. I find it to a very chilling move on the part of the Iranians.

Article: Iran eyes badges for Jews

That on top of the fact that they have called the holocaust a hoax and called for the destruction of Israel. How far will they be allowed to progress with their weapons programs and their very aggressive statements and moves toward Jews before some says "enough is enough"? In my opinion Iran continues to move itself closer and closer to military action almost on a daily basis.

Very scary developments.

Technorati Tags: Iran, Jews, Israel, Religious Intolerance, Religion

Tax Cuts will break the government

To put to rest another falsehood that the Democrats were selling during the discussion of tax cuts here is the real data:

Article: April Tax Revenue 2nd-Highest in History

I wonder why they aren't admitting that they were wrong about the tax cuts CAUSING the deficits? If the revenue is the higher than before, what could possibly be causing the deficits? Hmmmm... maybe spending?

Technorati Tags: Taxes, Tax Cuts, Taxation, Economics

Taxation by U.N.

I have read about it before and I see that they are not changing their tune. The U.N. is again pushing the idea of taxation by the "world government". Of course with the frivolous and unregulated spending that they have going on they are running out of funds. That on top of the fact that they can no longer make money on the "Oil For Food" program. So they think that they should be able to tax global citizens without going through the sovereign countries that are their members.

Article: UN Taxation of Americans – A Persistent Problem

I must say that I think that it is ridiculous for us to even allow the U.N. to consider this idea to take away sovereignty from us. Also, I think that the U.N. has done a great job of proving that they are not in need of more money but more oversight. For me personally I would rather see the U.S. pull out of the U.N. (not a completely bad idea) than to allow the U.N. to bypass the federal government to directly tax citizens (terrible idea).
Remember no U.N. officials are elected by public election. Many countries that are members are cruel oppressive dictators

Technorati Tags: UN, Taxes, Taxation, World Government

Rotten Economy

Well, less than a year ago everyone was talking about how terrible the economy was (even though it wasn't). Why is no one talking about how well it is doing now? Didn't they talk about during the 1990s?

The Dow broke 11,500 this morning. Unemployment is something like 4.7% nationally (BTW - Many economists will say that 4% is full employment) . Over a hundred thousand jobs added. Increases in salaries. All of this in an environment where oil prices are high and interest rates keep rising. I would have to say the economy is roaring again.

Even the federal government is bringing in more money than they were before the tax cuts. The size of the deficit is shrinking each year. Maybe they could stop the increased spending to pull that a little tighter. Do we really need a bridge to nowhere?

It is quite apparent to me that the Democrats must be right -- Tax Cuts don't work! All they do is damage the economy.

What is your opinion? Was the negativity about the economy just electioneering or did they have a point?


Technorati Tags: Economy, Taxes

Oil Price Explanation

Okay, I can't believe that I am doing this but I am going to link to an NPR article about the explanation behind the rising oil prices. (I am not a fan of NPR or their public paid for politics) This is a great article that describes the problem and the possible solutions (much to the dismay of many politicians).

Article: Q&A: What's Behind High Gas Prices?

What do you think?

Technorati Tags: Oil Prices, Oil, Gas Prices, Energy

Immigration Issues

Well having read a lot of the articles and propaganda over the last couple of days I have a couple of points that I wanted to bring up.

#1. Do people actually believe that the argument that the land used to be Mexican is justification for illegally entering the borders? Do they actually think that the slogans about retaking Mexican land are helping them?

I read a few quotes that I thought were a good indication of some of the feelings that will cause a serious backlash in the country:
"Uncle Sam Stole Our Land"
"If you think I'm illegal because I'm Mexican, learn the true history because I'm in my homeland"
Do they really believe that this rhetoric will help their cause? I think that it may actually hurt their cause. Should we also allow any French that want in to come to Louisiana? Or Russians to Alaska? Or even a stretch further Jews into Palestine (all of Palestine was Jewish at one time-- check the Bible)? How about Spain taking back Mexico? After all at one time they controlled it.

And on the comment of true history, that is very selective history. Actually, your homeland is probably somewhere in Asia or the land bridge, or Alaska, or Canada. Thinking about it all of our homeland is theoretically in the Middle East somewhere.

I guess my point is this is worthless argument.

#2. Why is it so contentious when new surges of immigrants come to the U.S.? It has been the case throughout history. There have been many culture wars throughout the history of the U.S. as new groups have entered.

#3. Why are the supporters of protests so dead set on having their own areas of the country? The U.S. is built on the idea that immigrants come and melt into society... with their traditions intact. Look at some of the traditions in the U.S.: St. Patrick's Day, Marti Gras, Oktoberfest, oh yeah and Cinco de Mayo. Many of the traditions remain yet the people join the melting pot not follow idiotic statements like this one:

"California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave." -- Mario Obledo of the California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations

Is New York a Jewish or Irish state? Is Louisiana a French state? Is Minnesota a Norwegian state? Nope, they are AMERICAN states.

#4. Why do the people believe that the Hispanic people are going to "take over" the United States? The U.S. has nearly 300 million people. With new influx of people from all over the world every day, the U.S. will remain the melting pot of the world. The very thing that has made it the greatest nation for many years.

Any thoughts on my ramblings? Please feel free to respond.

Technorati Tags: Illegal Immigrant, Immigration, Border Security, Republic

Hillary Chirac?

Well, here she goes again. Just a decade ago it was "HillaryCare", now she is pushing for expansion of the Family Leave Act to include children's school functions.

Hillary Clinton: Expand Family Leave Act

Hillary is asking that the government expand the Family Leave Act to not just protect workers during emergencies or birth but also for Joey's ballgame. I have no issue with someone leaving to go to their child's function but the government should not be mandating that business needs to pay for it without using their personal days. Isn't that what vacation days are for?

Who does this hurt? Small Business. Especially in today's world where kids are involved in everything imaginable. What if kids had something everyday? Should the business have to deal with not having their employee come to work every afternoon during the spring?

I may seem like a harsh capitalist but it is not business's responsibility to deal with this. This is just the beginning of where the socialist democrats like Hillary are headed. The end is where France is today. As we have seen in France people are not allowed to be fired and protest in the streets if they try to fix economic problems. I say let's stick with what made the U.S. great and not follow the path of a country who is severe economic problems.

Technorati Tags: Hillary, Socialism, Presidential Candidate

Amazing PC Articles

I just read an article that absolutely amazed me by how poor the analysis of the data and the reporting on it was. The article in fact was true but it amazed me how much political spin or ignorance exists. The article is titled: "Census: California second to New York in black-owned firms". There are so many places that I have a problem with it.

Wouldn't it make sense that the two most populous states would have the most black-owned firms? They make it sound like the other states are just way behind the curve.

Do you think that maybe part of the issue is how many black people live in the state? Amazingly New York, Texas, Georgia, Florida, California and the Chicago area have the highest numbers. Wow, what a surprise. I am guessing that North Dakota probably wouldn't have a high number of black owned businesses, maybe because not as many blacks live there.

Also a black owned business is defined as a business that is owned by at least 51% African American ownership of stock or equity. Does that mean that the other black people who don't own 51% aren't successful. That is a pretty skewed number when you consider that black people are a minority in the U.S. I just find this to be a very political number. Maybe the number should be the number of black shareholders in all companies to better indicate how the economy is affected if that is what the politicians are looking for.

All in all, I think that this article is largely racial politics but it is sad how many people will read this and buy into the idea that California and NY are working harder to be "equal opportunity".

Technorati Tags: Politically Correct, Racial Politics

Illegal Immigrant Problem

As this topic continues to rage in this country, I finally heard at least part of a solution that made sense to me. It was from a local talk show host, Jerry Agar. He opined that we should completely secure the American-Mexican border with either hard fence or virtual fence and not just the bits and pieces that the federal government wants. Then we need to remove the demand by cracking down on employers that are hiring illegal immigrants.

The reason that I like this idea is that as far as the fence goes, I think that we absolutely need to control that border. That does NOT mean that I want to close the border, just control who crosses it. That is a right that any sovereign nation has.

The reason that I like the idea of shutting down the employers is that it is very logical. If employers stop hiring illegal immigrants they will start hiring legals. This would increase the demand for legal employees which if there is really a need for us to increase our immigration limits (which I believe there is) it will be very apparent. But, it will also dry up the demand for illegals as they can not make a living in the U.S. without having gone through the legal process.

I also believe that this deals with the problem of the illegals in the U.S. because without the going through the legal process you can't make a living.

Once this plan were put in place, the politicians then need to streamline the legal immigration process. We are a country of immigrants and we should encourage that.

Technorati Tags: Illegal Immigrant, Immigration, Border Security

France weak in the spine

Once again the French politicians have proven that they are unable to stand up and make change happen. They continue to complain about their staggering economy. Instead of realizing their need for reforms they want to blame others.

So Chirac has again bowed to the pressure of the unions: France to replace youth job law

When was the last time that France stood tall with an opinion that wouldn't come from the flawed theory of consensus?

Technorati Tags: France, Socialism, Anti-Capitalist

No Coaching when you're angry

I just read a great blog post that I think is essential to being a good leader. You should coach your employees while you are angry. The author does a very good job of explaining why. Take a look!

Post: angry coaching

Technorati Tags: Leadership, Coaching, Employee

Line Item Veto Article

I brought up the idea of line item veto ammendment before so when I saw this article I decided I would add it. In the article Pat Toomey does a great job of explaining the concept and why it should be considered.

Article: Line-item veto is needed to curb runaway spending

Technorati Tags: Line Item Veto

Teenagers Lack Financial Literacy

I just read an article that discussed the fact that teenagers in the U.S. lack the financial literacy necessary to handle finances going forward. The article even lists some of the questions on the exam. This to me is of no surprise. I would bet that the adults aren't any better. The easiest way to tell that is how the savings rate continues to bottom out while the consumer debt continues to rise.

Article: USA Today: U.S. teenagers lack financial literacy

Has the time come to maybe cut a little of the PC education in schools and start teaching things that kids actually NEED to know?

Technorati Tags: Education, Finance

$3 or higher

I just read an article that says that gasoline this summer will probably $3 per gallon or higher. This is a topic that I have heard very good opinions on both sides of the argument.

One side says that it is free market effect that causes the high gas prices. Oil is traded in an open commodities-style market and that is what sets prices for the gas stations. People with this opinion believe that the demand has outstripped supply and that is what is causing the price increases.

The other side says that the oil companies manipulate the price by not building more refining capacity and creating fake shortages to raise prices. They would also say that even though the Nymex controls pricing it is not truly a free market when the same companies are on both sides of the transaction.

Unfortunately, in this case, I tend to agree with pieces of both arguments. I do believe that market forces are driving the price increases. I think that those market forces are being manipulated by the companies and by government. The current regulation in the market is not allowing natural market price controls to take effect. In a pure market, high prices would be met by increased competition that would increase supply, that would in turn level prices. In a regulated market, the competition can't get into the game because of the obstacles that the regulations put in place.

The other argument is whether "someone should do something about it". Many believe that the government should intervene to moderate the prices. They think that the high prices will hurt the economy and that gives the govt. the right to intervene.

I would say let the market handle this problem. We have already seen that domestic oil production has risen to help meet demand. If you will notice ethanol has become a much more talked about option. Hybrids are starting to take hold in the U.S. For years and years, environmentalists have pushed for controls on gas mileage and moving to cleaner fuels. All of the government regulation has done little to wean us from our SUVs or oil. One plus year of high priced gas has done more to move to alternative fuels than environmentalists have done in their existence.

In my opinion, there will be some pain for the next couple of years while the market adjusts. Once that is over, OPEC and the oil companies may well be wishing that they had tried to better control prices. The new energy cartel may be Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska and any other state that can produce lots of corn. Or possibly some other fuel!

Technorati Tags:Gas Prices

Riots in Paris

Well, I just read another article about problems in Paris over this law to allow companies to fire young people. I think that it is quite unfortunate that the youth of the country have grown up believing that the government's job is to provide them income. Also, they have been taught how evil capitalism is.

I read a couple of quotes in this article that appear to me to be big problems with solving this problem:

"...while many wore stickers stating: 'One solution: revolution against global capitalism'."

and

"But unions have vowed to resist overtures for talks unless the conservatives pledge to scrap the CPE and start anew on ways to tackle chronic youth joblessness stuck at 22 percent."

I guess when you oppose capitalism it may be hard to understand but if you would take an unbias look at economic fact you will find that it will very difficult to fix the joblessness problem without freeing the hands of business some. I think that France is in for a long hard fight unless the citizens begin to understand the root of the problem.

Tax Dollars At Work: Zero Gravity

I just got an email that contained the following explanation of why
our taxes are as high as they are. Thought you might enjoy it!


"When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ball-point pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat this problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and almost $12 billion developing a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside-down, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to over 300 C.

The Russians used a pencil.

Your taxes are due again -- enjoy paying them."

Business Venture Test: Cocktail Napkin Test

I was just reading an article that I found to be a very good piece of advise to everyone who is looking at starting a business with a great idea they have. It simply puts a little reality behind your decision.

The Cocktail Napkin Test

It is a pretty simple analysis but it would be very powerful if you utilized it before moving forward with a business venture.

French Issues

I know that I have brought this topic up a few times before but i have been following the story as it has unfolded. Today ole' Jacques said he will water down the bill that is causing such problems.

It is completely amazing to me that a country would actually have a law in place that prohibited firing an employee. I can honestly say that there is no way that I would have a company in that business environment. It completely ties the hands of the business owner to a point where they can not even control costs or efficiencies. If an employee decided to not do anything all day, that would be their choice.

To prove that people get used to nanny states, the French are protesting a law that would allow employers to fire younger employees within a probation type period. This would definitely be a positive for the business environment in France. Of course the citizens who take no responsibility for themselves don't like the idea.

Does anyone wonder why France has such high unemployment if they can't fire employees?

Immigration Protests

I posted earlier about the street protests that are occurring and my opinion of the securing of borders and immigration reform. As the protests continue, I grow a bit weary of it. I still fully believe that the U.S. needs to accept immigrants under an efficient yet legal process. I have some issues with the current situation.

• Why do illegal immigrants think they have rights in the U.S.? The Constitution of the United States protects U.S. citizens not people who broke the law to get here.
• If the Mexican immigrants are so proud of Mexico that they will burn American flags and raise Mexican flags, why don't they return to Mexico?
• Why do some Americans believe that protecting the borders is a negative thing?
• Why is reforming immigration and then solidifying the borders such a difficult topic?

The other thing that I am sick of hearing is how this is just like the civil right movement. That is a crazy notion. The people involved in this are illegally in the United States. During the civil rights movement the people were discriminated against because of their color not because they were illegal. If you would follow the proper process there would be no issue.

I am completely a supporter of reforming immigration to allow legal immigration to be more simple. My belief is that we simply must have better control over the process. I am also very concerned that the continuing protests are going to cause hard feelings which could cause some violence to occur. I just read an article about someone burning a Mexican flag after a protest. I think that people raising such a fuss may find the response to not be very positive.

Out of Touch

I was just reading an article where a group went off the deep end in San Francisco. They actually tried to bring God to San Fran. Apparently that is pushing things way to far because one of the city politicians was quoted saying: "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco".

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that everyone has to believe but don't people still have the Freedom of Religion? If they want to get together and worship, is that still allowed in our country? Is San Fran still in our country?

If you read the article you will also get the feel that even the writer believes that people who believe in God are some kind of mystics. It is quite amazing to me that this is where we are from a country who was founded by God fearing people.

Evangelical teens rally in S.F.

Kudlow's Money Politic$: Smack the Collective French Fanny

I found this post on Larry Kudlow's blog after my rant about France's economic problems. I found the blog and the comments very interesting.

Kudlow's Money Politic$: Smack the Collective French Fanny

I am amazed

I was just reading an article about the protests that have been going on all over the United States about the immigration bill that is going through Congress. I will say that I support anyone immigrating into the United States. The U.S. was founded by immigrants. It is what makes America strong.

On the other hand I think that we do need to secure our borders and better control who is coming and going from our country. I think that it is ridiculous that people can just cross the border whenever they feel like it.

I also believe that it is against our laws for people to come to the United States without having gone through the proper process. This is why I believe the term illegal alien is a very valid term.

What amazes me is how much of an outcry there is about the U.S. cracking down on illegals. I think that in a post-9/11 world people must realize that we need better control over our internal security. This is where this comes from.

Now, having said that I agree with the current laws to crack down, I also think that we need to reform our immigration. We need to make it easier for honest hard-working people to come to this country. It shouldn't be so difficult that people have to come in illegally. I actually like Bush's idea for the worker program. The people who are coming in to the country to work to make a better life for themselves and their families should be allowed in with open arms. It is the criminals, terrorists, drug pushers, etc. that should be stopped at the border. This is why the border security needs to be increased.

We live in the country of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." It is what made America great and it will continue to keep America strong. We just must make sure that America continues to exist for those tired, poor, huddled masses.

A Little Pompous

Did you hear that Jacques Chirac stormed out of an EU summit because English was spoken instead of French? Can you believe that?

Article: Chirac ‘shocked’ by use of English at summit

I am just curious what language is used more across Europe? Could it be an attempt at French domination of the EU? Well as long as they don't have to fight to dominate they may be able to.

Peacenik Ingrates

I can not believe the audacity that some people have! 4 "Christian" peaceniks were captured by terrorists in Iraq a month or so ago. One was killed during that time. Then the U.S. and British troops put their lives on the line to save them. They were rescued by the troops and will now return home.

After troops put their lives on the line for these people, the response says that they were "released unharmed". As if the terrorists decided that they were good people and said well bye now! Also, in the statement released by Christian Peacemaker Teams they go on to rip the troops and their mission in Iraq. AFTER THE SAME TROOPS SAVE THEIR MEMBER'S LIVES!!!

Pull them out of nasty situation and instead of a thank you they give you the finger. Very nice.

Article: http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20060323-005/page.asp

The Catch 22 in France

I was just reading some information about the riots or "demostrations" if you like in France. They are very interesting to me from my political/economic viewpoint.

What I currently see is that unemployment in many European countries is very high due to the fact that the government has placed so much regulation in place. Why would someone want to find a job if the government will take care of them?

Also, I think that many of the problems are due to the labor unions being so strong and so demanding. From a business perspective, let's be completely honest, I want to make a profit. If that were not the case I wouldn't be in business. The union continues to push for less work out of the employees while paying them more. So the company pays more for less work. They would need to hire more employees to get the same amount of work done. But can they afford to hire more employees at the increased rate? Remember that even the evil corporations have a specific budget that they must meet or the very evil shareholders/owners don't make anything.

So what happens when the companies can't do this? They either go to a more business friendly county, outsource jobs, or go out of business. What happens to those jobs? Gone. What happens to unemployment? It skyrockets.

Now the viscious cycle has begun though. Because of the increased unemployment costs on the government, they must raise taxes. Those taxes cut into the profits of the companies and more move or go out of business.

What is interesting to me is the attitude of the French people. They truly believe that it is the government's job to provide them jobs. So they expect that more regulation will make things better. This is the beauty of the welfare state. After a while the citizens actually look to the government for the solutions to all of their problems. So the government taxes to provide services. Who will pay the taxes to provide all of those services?

Margaret Thatcher took the correct approach in the U.K. in the 1980s. Deregulate the industries and remove some of the welfare state programs. Allow the evil capitalist market to do it's job.

Companies provide jobs. Jobs provide money for the people. People buy more products. Products must be produced by more companies. The evil capitalist cycle does what politicians can't -- provide jobs and money.

Abaraxas: What The Politicians Don’t Want You To Know About The National Debt

My friend Matthew just posted an excellent article about the national debt and the politics that revolves around it.

Abaraxas: What The Politicians Don’t Want You To Know About The National Debt

It is amazing that how much the statement "Veritas vos Liberabit" plays into modern politics.

veritas vos liberabit = The Truth will set you free

Positive Job Market?

Okay, I am really confused... the media is whining about the job market. Democrats are saying that it is the worst job market since the depression. The job market sky is falling!!!

Oh wait, what is this? Best job market in 5 years?? Almost reaching full employment?? That doesn't make any sense.

Best job market in 5 years for grads

What could this possibly mean? Oh yeah, election year and the Democrats are ramping up the political rhetoric.

Anti-American Dream

I am amazed at how many people talk about the "American Dream" and then as soon as some company grows too big immediately tries to tear it down. Or... raise taxes as high as possible on the rich. So, basically it is great if you succeed as long as you stay within a certain (unspecified) set of limits.

I was just reading about a couple of states passing legislation for the sole purpose of keeping WalMart from opening their affiliate banks inside of their stores. One of the quotes by a completely unbiased party, Kathleen Murphy (CEO of Maryland Bankers Association), is: "We have seen what Wal-Mart has done to local retailers, and we just fear the same impact will happen to commercial banking in the state of Maryland". I bet if it were one of her members she wouldn't have a problem with it.

The second problem that I have with that statement is that WalMart has every right to compete in the market place. If that means that companies who can't compete go out of business we have a name for that - capitalism. Many argue that they can't compete with WalMart's prices. I agree. Very short MBA lesson ... price is not the only competition point. Let me give you a little hint as to how to compete... find something else to compete with them on. Service would be one of the areas I would shoot for.

Why should we be so jealous of large companies or rich people? I personally would love to own a large company (I guess I actually do to some extent in my 401K ... another blog) and I am striving really hard to become one of those evil rich people.

Ridiculous Airline Industry

I can not believe how the airline industry is nickel and diming people to death. Well, let me rephrase... how the old line airline industry is nickel and diming people to death. First, it was pay for snacks now pay for decent seats in COACH!!

Revenue-hungry airline adds $15 fee for premium coach seats

The article also says: "Trippler predicted other charges will be forthcoming later this year from airlines, including a $1 or $2 charge for sodas and juice."

It has turned into a ridiculous situation where the consumer is paying for poor management and poor business structure. In my opinion, in the long run the market will win out. This will probably mean very dark days ahead for these airlines (unless of course the government short circuits the market and bails them out once again).

All of this as Southwest continues to rake in profits without all of the nickel and dime B.S. Isn't it possible for the old-line carriers to see how Southwest is beating them? They are trying a business model that caters to the customer. What a revolutionary concept!

Time for Line Item Veto

For a short period of time will Bill Clinton was the U.S. President the United States had the line item veto. Not for long though. The Supreme Court found the power to be unconstitutional (Clinton v. City of New York) even though the Constitution does not even discuss the topic. In fact they said that silence was the prohibition.

Anyway, is this something that should be considered for Constinutional ammendment? In my opinion, yes. The reason that I believe this is because the founding fathers never dreamed that the legislature would use legislation the way that they do. Most bills contain some sort of "rider". Many times they have absolutely nothing to do with the original bill but the president has to decide whether to kill the entire bill in order to remove little appropriation.

The Democrats used this issue to help send George H.W. Bush back to Texas in 1991. The passed and education bill that contained tax increases as riders. He then had a choice, veto the education bill and be viewed as anti-education or sign the bill and go against his "No New Taxes" pledge. Very slick on the Democrats part.

Now, I am not saying that the line item veto should be created simply for political reasons. I think that it needs to be added so that a President can control more of the pork barrel spending that continually increases on Capitol Hill. By using the line item veto the President could remove the riders and still be able let the original bill be made law.

I think that time has come to consider this topic. Here's more information:

Save the Line Item Veto
Clinton v. City of New York

Long Term: Offshoring Benefits Economy

In a topic I find very interesting, I found this blog about offshoring to be reassuring to my point of view on this topic:

Outsourcing beneficial in the long run: OECD study

This topic really interests me for a few reasons. First, I am in the IT field which is a market that is heavily offshored. Second, during my MBA pursuit I found that I have an interest in macroeconomics. Third, I find the paranoia about this topic amusing.

Port Deal: Overruled??

It looks like the port deal may not happen. The Senate and House look to have killed the deal with threat of possible legislation and dealing with the UAE. I am still not completely sure that this should have been the firestorm it turned into but it may now be over.

UAE firm to transfer port operations to U.S. Entity

I have also heard that the U.S. Entity could be Halliburton. Would that really be a victory for the Democrats?

Ports issue: Another view

I see that my colleague Matthew is blogging on the same topic but he appears to have a slightly different view than I do. Since I am really exploring this topic, I will be very interested to read his posts. I hope that you take a look at his blog for info also: Abaraxas

Ports saga

Here are some of the articles that I read about this issue over the past few days.

Port Control: It's a No-Brainer
The politics of Ports
Protectionism by another name

You will see that these are all from TownHall.com which is pretty conservative in nature, yet the authors disagree with each other. I personally feel that both sides have very valid viewpoints but I personally still think it is a deal best kept from happening.

Why can't activists just let go when the case is over?

Okay, I am probably going to rant a bit in this post. I watched the movie North Country last night. It was a pretty good movie. It was actually set in Northern Minnesota where I grew up which probably made me want to see it even more. It is a pretty good story about a sexually harrassed woman who tries to stop the treatment. All in all a pretty good movie.

So anyway I complete the movie and I want to hear more information on the original case that occurred that was the inspiration for this movie. I start watching the documentary that is included on the DVD and guess who is one of the first people on there: spokesman for NOW. I let it go because I figured that maybe they actually did something right and helped in this case. Then here she comes again. This time she is saying what a great victory it was and how more people need to get involved because we still have a long ways to go. This is where I kind of lost it. The women in the movie are being sexually assaulted not just harrassed. I may be nieve but I don't think that a lot of sexual assault is occurring in the workplace anymore.

Now, my big issue with this is the message that is conveyed that we have a long way to go. I think that the case brought up in the story was the long way to go. I believe that the women in this story were extremely strong and deserve a lot of credit for what they did. Women did not have the rights in the workplace then that they do today. Why trivialize their contributions by saying that it was just a start? In the places that I have worked women are treated with respect. Now, I understand that things still happen but the law protects women now. I guess my point is, why is it that once the problem is dealt with activists still believe that "they have a long way yet to go". This appears to be the case with women rights, civil rights, etc.

I am defintely not saying that women should be protected, they should. I just question why activists have to be militant about changing things when the things have already been changed.

Could it possibly be because the campaigns happen to make some of these people very rich and they don't want to cut down the money tree?

Ports Argument

I mentioned in a previous post that I am unsure of the ports deal with the UAE. I just found a great editorial and I thought I would share. I think it gives a good explanation of why it is not a problem.

Ports of Politics

I especially thought the following quote makes a lot of sense:
"Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials."

A Veto from the No-Veto President?

I must say that this story is extremely disappointing to me all the way around. I personally am not sure whether the U.S. should outsource our ports to the UAE company or not but the political storm around it has brought up some of the most ridiculous statements that I have heard since the last Presidential election.

#1 - Why should we treat this UAE business differently than the British company that is trying to make the deal? To me this is a ridiculous statement because the answers are really to easy. First, the British company is not partially owned by a foreign government. This seems like enough of a reason for me. Second, how many of the terrorist actions have been committed by native Brits?

#2 - If we don't allow it we show prejudice toward the Arab world. Again, I disagree. I think that we show restraint. We are attempting to protect our borders. As Jay Leno said, should we outsource our immigration policy to Mexico?

#3 - President Bush will veto any legislation trying to stop it. This is probably the most irritating one to me. He skipped vetoing the campaign finance reform, the education giveaway, the medicare explosion act, the transportation bill but NOW I will veto a bill that has a real justification in the eyes of the American people?

I think that is time for serious discussion on this issue and not just posturing, threats, and scare tactics. Is it the right solution? I really don't know but I am beginning to believe that some of the politicians in Washington aren't.

What is it?

Did you read the strange story of the black tarlike substance in LA? Seems kinda strange to me.

Mystery blob eating downtown

Here's the explanation:

Oil Buckles Street and Damages Building

Racism for Political Gain

Why is it that anytime anything happens that people seem to find a racist way of looking at the problem? I was just reading an article about the Detroit Zoo where the city politicians are saying the state of Michigan is trying to control them because they are black. Are the animals black too? I think that the only color that the decision has anything to do with is green (the state funds the zoo).

The Future of the Detroit Zoo

The same thing happened in New Orleans when the hurricane hit. The federal government didn't respond because it is a "black city". When hurricanes hit other states guess who responds first -- the state and local government. Then the federal government responds. So who didn't respond properly? But instead of questioning state and local government it is immediately a racial issue.

I believe that many black politicians have become so programmed with their racial rhetoric that can't respond with anything else. This kind of thinking is not helping anyone except the politicians. Get over it and come up with real solutions to real problems.

Offshoring Woes

I am continually amazed at how many people are so worried about the offshoring of technology and call center jobs. The U.S. has been offshoring jobs for many decades and probably even longer.

As we have been sending jobs overseas our unemployment rate has stayed the same or even dropped. On a historical basis our current unemployment rate is extremely low. During most of America's history economists would have been thrilled with and unemployment rate below 6%. Yet today because of the political waters it is being viewed as very poor number.

We are also reading many articles about how the offshoring of jobs is not working as planned for many companies. Many are finding that it costs much more in the long run than they had been promised. Also, as more and more companies offshore the work the prices for skilled people in those areas is ballooning. This article points out a problem that is currently being experienced in the Philippines:

Philippine BPOs facing dearth of skilled workers

I think that this issue is much more of a political issue than a job issue. Jobs exist in the United States. In many fields there are shortages of workers. The offshore resources are filling that shortage in some cases. In other cases companies are saving money by using cheaper resources. By saving money, they are making more which is profitable for their shareholders. Who are their shareholders? Probably each and every one of us. Remember your retirement account?

As this continues to happen costs will rise overseas and it will become less and less profitable to send jobs overseas (look what happened in Japan 25 years ago). Our economy will continue to create jobs both here and overseas. What will our economy look like in 10 years? Only time will tell, but if it is larger and stronger it will be partially due to offshoring.

M-Learning World

Well, unfortunately it looks like our previous host for M-Learning World is not going to provide us with a web presence in the near future. Matthew has created a new blog for the time being to discuss the mLearning issues. Please take a look:

M-Learning World Blog

Networking made easy

Vincent has a phenomenal LinkedIn introduction idea. A very simple yet informative introduction. Take a look:
Linkedin Business Discussion Index: Introducing MLPF Micro-Introductions

Kudlow's Money Politic$: Shrinking Budget Deficit

Why is it so difficult to understand that if taxes are cut that in time the government will actually make more money(Laffer curve)?
Kudlow's Money Politic$: Shrinking Budget Deficit

The New Market Bubble Theory

I just read an article on Wired News called "The New Market Bubble Theory". The article is a summarization of a discussion with economist Harry S. Dent. Dent believes that the economy will go into a boom cycle for the next few years reminiscent of the late 90s. He believes that this bubble will burst in 2010 and will cause a much more severe downturn than the last recession that we saw. He says worse than the 1970s but not as bad as the Great Depression.

I am not sure that anyone can really tell what is going to happen in the future. If you could would you really need to make forecasts or would you be living on your own tropical island because you are a multi-gazillionaire. If you have the ability to tell the future, you should be investing or gambling.

On the other hand, the economy is cyclical. It does follow cycles. History has shown that every time we think that we have it under control, we don't.

My biggest issue with the forecasting the future is that you can't tell what the government will screw up or who they will upset. In most big downturns there is a very large political element (Hoover raising taxes during a downturn) or a drastic change world relations (OPEC embargo) that causes them. It is not purely cyclical, it is largely political.

"This Is A Remarkable Economy"

I just read an article in BusinessWeek with that as the title. Then there is the subtitle - "But President Bush isn't getting much credit for it, says Allan B. Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council"

Article

Why is it that the there is no discussion of how the tax cuts really did spark a growing economy?

Trade Deficit

This morning I read that the trade deficit has begun to narrow.

U.S. Trade Deficit Narrows Slightly

This is a good piece of information but of course the dreaded asterisk is added to the story. We still have the third highest deficit on record. Doesn't that stand to reason based on a theory called inflation?

There is another part of this article that really makes me question people's understanding of the economy. The article states: "The soaring trade deficits are being used by Democrats as evidence that President Bush's policies of striking free trade agreements around the world have failed to protect American workers from unfair competition from low-wage countries such as China. They blame the loss of 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs since mid-2000 on trade liberalization policies that have allowed U.S. companies to move factories overseas." This statement makes no sense to me. Our unemployment rate still sits at very low levels compared to historical averages. Our economy has been creating jobs for the last two years. Lastly, the Democrats strongly support the union policies that make our workers unable to compete with foreign labor.

Just seems to me that the Democrats are playing on the fact that many don't understand economic numbers. What are your thoughts?

Conservatives call for return to values

This is a very good article that discusses the problems in Washington today. The Republicans are not following through on their ideas even though the people gave them the majorities that they claim that they needed to make changes happen.

Conservatives call for return to core Republican principles

What needs to happen in order for politicians to begin to realize that they can not take their positions for granted?

Founder's Quote 1/10/06

Today's Founders Quote from the PatriotPost really struck me this morning:

"The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, andif this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure,than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and theforms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty."
-- John Adams (letter to Zabdiel Adams, 21 June 1776)
Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett (371)`

Tax Parasites

I just read a very interesting post on The Reform Club blog:

The Reform Club: Democrats: Tax Parasites

My opinion is that people who are carrying the largest majority of the tax burden tend to be most interested in the candidate that wants to lower taxes. Then people who aren't paying taxes or are paying much smaller percentages tend to not be as concerned about the tax rates.

Then, the people who have the most to gain from social programs tend to follow the candidate who is promising the most free money. Again this tends to go against the people who are paying the taxes because whether politicians want to admit it or not the someone has to pay the bill.

Those concepts probably better define the difference in the red and blue states.

Dale Carnegie Quote

I just received this quote in an email and thought that it was so simple yet very powerful:

“Keep your mind open to change all the time. Welcome it. Court it. It is only by examining and reexamining your opinions and ideas that you can progress.”
- Dale Carnegie

Worlds Most Admired CEOs ranked by their peers

I just read this post on the Harvard Business School's website and found the results very interesting. The peers had a much different viewpoint than BusinessWeek's survey.

2005 World's Most Admired Chief Executives (Harvard Business School)

How can this allow us to improve ourselves?

Real Estate Venture Part 2

As I am sure some people know (although I didn't), many real estate investors in the U.S. function with the properties held in their name. The other option that I am finding, if you need financing, is to purchase the property in your name and then use a quit claim deed to pass ownership to your corporation. There are some issues with this but it appears that is how many handle the issue.