Test a Theory

The Republicans say the best way to get the economy going is to cut taxes. Well, let's test that theory with the automotive industry. What would happen if we cut sales tax on vehicle purchase in half for the first quarter of 2009? This is what I would see happen.

1) The automotive industry would sell more cars and earn more money, thus reducing the need for a bailout package.

2) More auto loans means more revenue for banks and credit unions. Thus reducing the need for a bailout package.

3) State revenue will probably go down unless car sales double. But I think the revenue would go up since there would be a lot more car sales.

I know this seems like a simple idea, but what are the reasons why this wouldn't work?

Give a man a fish...

There is a saying that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. You teach a man to fish you feed him for a life time. How much better would government be if this principle were applied to the different social programs? Don't get me wrong, I think social programs are necessary. Nobody knows when they might need medicare, medicaid, or welfare. I just hope people don't consider that as their first or only option.

After Hurricane Katrina I met with some people who had spent some time helping people clean up and leave their damaged homes. One story that I heard was of a man that wouldn't leave his home and when they asked him why, he said that he was waiting for his welfare check to come in the mail. That is someone who was waiting for his fish.

The welfare program should be more than a hand out. There must be a requirement that someone who goes on welfare should learn how to fish. If someone can't find another job in their field, then they should train for a job in another field. I know that will take time, but it is better for everyone involved to improve their education. Hopefully the end game is that the person has improved self confidence and life skills. And on the other hand I hope it stops the reliance on welfare.

When does life begin?

This week both candidates appeared in front of an evangelical group to discuss their faith and to answer questions. One question that was posed to both candidates was, "When does life begin?" Both answers were quite interesting. Barrack Obama had a thoughtful answer, but he didn't answer the question. He said it was "above his pay grade". Even though he gave an answer, I really wished he would have answered the question than talk his way around it.

Compare that answer to John McCain's. He said "at conception". A short answer, that answered the question. Even though it was a political answer and probably his true belief, it was still good to at least hear an answer to the question that was asked.

For your information Merriam-Webster defines Life this way:
1
a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

Texting while driving

One thing that I don't understand is why people think it is okay to text while driving. Do they think that they aren't going to have an accident? Do they think they have the skills to do both? I can tell you that they don't. In the late 90's if there was someone driving slowly on the freeway it was normally an older person driving the car. In today's world it is the teenager, the business manager, or mom texting while driving. I want to honk at them to let them know that I'm not please, but I'm afraid that they will over correct and cause an accident.

I think there should be a federal law put in place stating what a driver can do while driving. Texting shouldn't be one of them. Here are a few other ones that I would include: hands free required, no doing their make up, and no reading. Please drive while you drive. Remember driving is a privilege, it isn't a right.

How much does it cost to be President?

This week John McCain and Barrack Obama released how much money they collected during the month of June. John McCain raised $22 Million while Barrack Obama raised $52 Million. So far in this campaign they have raised a total of over $481 Million. Add that total to all the other money raised by the other candidates and it totals $1,074,000,000. Over 1 billion dollars. At what point do we say enough is enough? We need to change how elections are run in this country. They shouldn't cost this much or last this long.

New website, but what is it rated?

In 1922, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) was formed. Its international counterpart the Motion Picture Association (MPA) was founded in 1945. Together they "serve as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically through the MPAA and internationally through the MPA. Today, these associations represent not only the world of theatrical film, but serve as leader and advocate for major producers and distributors of entertainment programming for television, cable, home video and future delivery systems not yet imagined." (1) Starting in November 1968, the MPAA started to rate films based on the films content. Today we have the ratings of G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17.

In 1997, the TV Parental Guidelines was enacted by the FCC to provide ratings to TV content and applies to most broadcast and cable programming. It was intended to work with the V-chip that was built into televisions after 2000 to allow parents to block content on their TVs. Ratings include: TV-Y, TV-Y7, TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14, and TV-MA.

As we see different forms of media have provided a rating system to allow parents and individuals to get an understanding of what the content is in the. I have given examples of different forms of "visual" media. Would it be too much to ask that a ranking system be put in place for the Internet? In order to rate the Internet a few questions need to be answered first: 1) who would do the rating, 2) who would enforce it, and 3) how is it useful? For two of those questions, I think the FCC would be the answer.

The FCC would provide guidelines on what types of images, words, or content would qualify for each ranking. They would also be responsible for handing out fines to the website owners and web hosting companies that provide space for the websites. The FCC could also work in conjunction with other governments to create a global standard of website ratings.

Once websites have been rated (within a reasonable timeframe), parents or other individuals could them block certain rated material from entering their homes. This would allow parents to protect their child from content they find unsuitable. It would be similar to how the V-chip works.

There are some potential problems with this idea. First, how long and how much would it cost to implement this rating system? Who is to interrupt who certain content is to be ranked? What is one country doesn't follow the ranking system? Those are some of the areas that need to be worked out, but they are manageable.

I understand that that is only a brief list of potential problems and someone is always going to find a way around it, but at least it is a start. It isn't a new idea. They have done it with movies. They have done it with television. Why can't they do it with the internet?

(1) http://www.mpaa.org/AboutUs.asp

Because I can...

The local news has been running stories over the past few days about individuals who feel like they are being harassed by the local police departments because they carry handguns out in the open. For full disclosure, I want to say I'm a firm believer in the second amendment, but I do think there should be some restrictions.

It is hard for me to understand why someone wants to carry a gun in public. Don't they fill safe walking through the community? What is this need that drives them to carry a weapon in public? I haven't talked with them personally, but I have talked with friends and family members that have concealed weapons permits. I've asked them multiple times why they want to carry a weapon. I usually hear two answers: 1) self defense and 2) because I can.

If the open carry individuals answer the same way, then I have to ask, isn't showing a gun a more aggressive stance than a defensive one? The majority of Americans don't carry a gun. I'm sure many don't even own a gun. So why does someone feel the need to take an aggressive stance in public by carrying a gun? "Because I can."

Just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they should do it. Many people use the Bill of Rights, especially the first and second amendment, to do and say things because they can. Personally I don't think that was the intent of the founding fathers when they created the document. It was to protect our rights, not to give us the right to flaunt them.

I say, if you really want to carry a gun, get a concealed weapons permit and don't make others uncomfortable, especially those who willingly choose to "protect and serve" us.

Teachers vs Babysitters

Do we pay our teachers enough? I did a simple calculation the other day thinking about what it would cost me to have one of my kids watched by a babysitter for the same amount of time an average student is in school. Here is my math:

6 Hours X 180 Days X $5/hour = $5,400

Now that doesn't seem like a lot until you put 20 kids in a class room.

$5400 X 20 = $108,000

I'm not saying we should pay teachers $108,000, but it sure makes you think about what we are paying them per hour per student.

Ask Not what Your Country Can Do For You...

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own." - John F. Kennedy

Where has this country gone wrong? John F. Kennedy had the right idea 47 years ago. It isn't what this country can do for us. Should we expect the government to fix our problems. Should they fix the credit crisis, should they suspend the gas tax, or should they increase social programs? The answer is maybe. It is hard to say "Yes" or "No" to questions like that, but we should be asking, what can I do to prevent these problems from affecting me.

The credit crisis came along because of greed. Greed from the financial institutions who were making money from sub prime mortgages. It was the greed of the consumer for stretching beyond their means to buy homes they couldn't afford. To truly protect ourselves from such swings in the economy is to live within our means. Just because I can buy something, doesn't mean I should. As someone with a credit score getting close to 800 I can buy pretty much anything I want. The point is I haven't and that is why my credit score is close to 800. Personal finance needs to taught in our high schools and by parents. It is skill that needs to be developed.

Suspending the gas tax is not the solution. I could agree with a tax holiday on diesel, but for all types of gasoline? I suggest diesel because 90% of our goods are transported by diesel-powered trucks. By reducing their costs to transport these goods those savings can and should be passed along. By lowering the cost of food it helps everyone.

Another solution is to reduce the amount that we drive. I continue to get emails that say we should not buy gas on Wednesday. If I don't buy it on Wednesday, I'm going to buy it on Thursday. Does that really help? They also say I buy gas only from those gas companies who sell "American Oil". If everyone does that, they'll run out of gas and be forced to buy it from other gas companies. Even if I don't buy gas at Exxon, they are going to supply those who are. What we need to do is reduce how much we drive. I mentioned in a earlier post I think the government should encourage working from home one day a week by removed communication taxes on high speed internet. Another idea is to deliver mail only five days a week. Who wants to worry about bills on the weekend? By doing this, it reduces the demand on oil. By reducing the demand, it increases the supply, and prices go down. Reducing demand is one way to reduce the price.

Should social programs be increased or decreased? That is a dangerous question. I think some should be decreased, and some should be increased. The welfare program shouldn't be a free ride. It should be a re-training program. There should be some volunteer requirement to sustain benefits similar to the Habitat for Humanity requirement. I will admit that there are those that really need the program because of disability or age. And that is who the program is really designed for. People who are able to work should work. By providing a training program we give them a chance to learn a new skill and to gain confidence in their own abilities. That would truly benefit America.

So I say again, what can we do for our country. By living in our means, by doing our part to when times are tough, and by not relying on the government to fix our problems, we can truly make this country great and be about God's work by helping others.

Smog, Smog, everywhere. Let's all try to breath.

I live in a city where smog can get quite bad at different times of the year. The State government always says that they need to do something about it, but I haven't really seen anything that has taken place. One of the main contributors to the problem are automobiles. The State has worked quite a bit on public transportation, but with the increasing size of the population it doesn't keep pace. I think the State government could enact a couple other solutions that could help the problem.

1. No sales tax on vehicles that get over 40 mpg on the hwy. It will encourage people to buy fuel efficient vehicles, hopefully to commute in. There are plenty of option out there that meet those requirements.

2. Tax credit for alternative fueled vehicles. Such vehicles include E85, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), hybrid, and electric vehicles.

3. Bring electric vehicles here. There are many new car companies out there that are starting to build electric vehicles. Having a manufacturing plant here will help educate the population of their available options.

4. Reduction taxes on broadband internet. If more people have internet at home, more people can work from home. If people only had to go to the office four days a week that could reduce car emissions by 20%. But that would take a lot to get everyone there.

5. Reduce the public transportation fares on certain days. I would reduce fares on Wednesday of each week. It would encourage people to ride on those days and people see the benefits of public transportation.

Please let me know if you State or City have started any of these programs and how it has helped.

Social Security...Can I diversify my portfolio?

It has been interesting to watch the debate on social security over the past few years. There has been a lot of talk, but no action. This is my idea to help, maybe fix, the current social security program.

Every paycheck I put money into social security and every year I get a summary from the government on what my benefits might be. It is an interesting read to say the least, but I wonder if there is a better way to invest my future retirement funds. To be totally honest I don't plan to see any social security benefits by the time I retire so should I consider that a wise investment of my money? I do do my best to put money way with every paycheck and my annual bonus. I also try to diversify my portfolio to reduce the risk of losing all of my money in one bad account.

Right now the money I'm putting into social security is going into a bad account. It would be nice if I could be guaranteed that I would get some of that money back. It would be nice if I could diversify those funds thus reducing the risk of losing it all to a broken system. What I suggest is that the social security program institute a 401k match program. In general, if someone invests 5% of their income into a 401k, the government should return 5% of the social security payments and put it into the my 401k. This would encourage people to save money for retirement, thus diversify their potential retirement funds.

I think the government should also encourage companies to provide a 401k match program. It could be done through tax breaks or some other incentive program. Once again this would encourage people to put money away for retirement. If we can encourage more people to save for retirement, then potentially the government could reduce benefits, thus being able to support more people.

You know this is just a thought, but could it work? Let me know. Do you have any suggestions for improvements?

If you keep throwing money in the air, people are going to jump for it.

If there is one thing that I learned from my economical classes in college it was the law of supply and demand. I think that principle holds true with the government and government programs. If you supply the government with money, they will keep demanding it. It seems like no matter what money we give these programs it is never enough. When was the last time you heard one of these programs say, "Wait, that is too much money, please cut our budget by 10%". I've never heard it, but if you have please let me know. I would love to be corrected.

My next few posts will address some of the areas where I think too much money is just given to different programs without stopping to think, "What can we do to better use the money or truly improve the program?" As part of those posts I'll also present my ideas on how to improve the programs.

Purpose

As we enter the Political season (actually it started a year and a half ago) I thought I would put my pen to paper and present some of my political, social, and economical thoughts for consideration. I have a few hopes for this blog, first, I hope that by presenting my thoughts to the public they can be vetted by those who read them. This will help me develop better potential policies by strengthening my arguments or completely change my way of thinking. I have no problem of accepting my mistakes and changing my mind. Second, I hope it will allow me to become a better writer. As the old saying goes, practice makes perfect.

I hope you enjoy my thoughts for considerations and that you can help me become a better thinker.