Search This Blog

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Welcome to the Party

I'm sure every single member of American society feels overwhelmed with news of the debt ceiling.  We have the Democrats on the left side stirring the pot about how if we don't raise the debt ceiling that we will default and there will be ominous consequences.  Barack Obama has even said in no uncertain terms that he isn't sure the federal government will be able to send out all those Social Security checks that the good citizens rely on after August 2 if the debt ceiling isn't raised substantially.  There's been so much pandering to the AARP sect of voters that I'm starting to wonder if another block of voters even exists.  One of the big scare tactics from the left is that if the USA defaults then our creditworthiness (Is that really a word? It just feels weird.) will be damaged irreparably which will then cause our already fragile economy to tumble into a double dip recession or even a depression.  We have the Republicans on the right (but probably not correct) side of the aisle that seem to be somewhat divided.  Apparently some on the right including Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell are willing to hand over free reign of raising the debt ceiling to Barack Obama and his cronies.  We have another more ardent faction including most of the freshman House Republicans and most notably Rand Paul in the Senate that have been preaching big time cuts and a balanced budget amendment primarily but also seem willing to raise the debt ceiling if that will be enough to coerce the Democrats into agreeing to the Cap, Cut and Balance plan they have forwarded.

Lost in the shuffle among all this banter were what I found to be two of the most important pieces of information that could help point us in the direction of making the correct (not right) decision.  Standard and Poor's [1] recently warned that the good ol' USA is in real jeopardy of being downgraded from AAA to a lowly AA rating on their system.  Basically, they seem to imply that this is inevitable by warning that raising the debt ceiling will damage the rating and not cutting back on spending will also damage the rating.  Since NOT raising the debt ceiling AND cutting back on spending isn't even being seriously considered in ANY of the discussions it would seem that a credit downgrade is not only possible but absolutely inevitable.

Following up the S&P news was a release from Moody's [2] that they too are strongly considering a downgrade of US creditworthiness.  (Sorry, but the full Moody's report is available [3] for pay and in these difficult economic times I can't afford it and am forced to rely on second hand information)  They seem more confident that the debt ceiling will be raised but seem to imply they have little faith that the politicians will make sizable enough cuts to impact the real problem which is out of control spending.

I hate to say "I told you so" (actually I love it) but Libertarians and more recently Tea Party members have been preaching this mantra of balancing the budget and maintaining some semblance of fiscal responsibility for quite some time.  I know the Tea Party gets a bad rap in the news frequently and I think in a lot of cases that that bad rap isn't exactly without cause due to the fact that the Tea Party has unfortunately attracted a small number of fringe personalities that damage and marginalize the real beliefs and mission of the group.  However, I do admire the Libertarian fundamentals that the group espouses.  Unfortunately, I believe that both the Democrats and Republicans are a little late to the Party and won't be able to make any meaningful impact on the political machine in DC.  It may indeed be too late to avoid a downgrade of the US credit rating but it is not too late to replace the lousy politicians we currently have with some new ones that will be willing to stand up and do the right thing which is reel in the out of control spending and restore fiscal sanity in our federal government.  I believe this has already started with the 2010 elections and I also strongly believe that Americans have finally awakened to this reality and will continue to replace the business as usual politicians including Barack Obama in 2012.  We may not be able to avoid a double dip recession or even a depression but we are definitely not too late to save this great republic.






Friday, July 22, 2011

A few words on taxation and fairness

We've all been absolutely inundated with end of the world/the sky is falling talk about the debt ceiling and how to balance the budget lately.  I just wanted to throw out a couple of quick observations on some of the things we've been hearing from our politicians lately.

The big thing that caught my attention and I wanted to address was this talk of tax "fairness".  Barack Obama and his Democrat cronies have been making a big push for raising taxes on both individuals and businesses as part of an overall plan to balance the budget and this is the one issue that seems to be the biggest sticking point between the two parties.  I would like to address both the individual and corporate taxes separately.

On raising individual taxes, Obama repeatedly pushes the notion that raising taxes means everyone would be "paying their fair share".  However, he isn't pushing for a new taxation policy that would be anything close to fair.  What Obama wants is to increase taxes primarily on those individuals making more than $250,000.  In America, the number of households that makes more than $250,000 is around 2% or 1 in 50.  (1)  Interestingly, the top 1% of income earners already pay an extremely large proportion of all tax revenue at roughly 38%.  (2) In addition, in 2009 less than half (49%) of all Americans paid any taxes and about 30% not only didn't pay taxes but actually had a net negative effect by getting money back via the EIC and other tax credits.  (3)  So, what we have is a small minority of Americans already footing the bill for the majority (51%) who pay no taxes.  It is beyond comprehension how further increases in taxation to the minority already footing the bill could be seen as "everyone paying their fair share".  Wouldn't it be much more fair if the majority who pay no taxes started picking up at least a small portion of the bill by paying at least some taxes?  That's to say nothing of those actually taking money out of the coffers via the EIC and other tax credits.  I'd say further increases in taxation on those making over $250,00 is the polar opposite of making "everyone pay their fair share".  But that's just my opinion, I guess.  To further increase taxes on the roughly 2% of Americans that already provide the lion's share of tax revenue amounts to nothing more than "classism" akin to sexism or racism.

On corporate taxation, I fear that Obama will drive our economy further into the ground by increasing corporate taxes.  Actually, Obama has been pitching this idea as "closing corporate tax loopholes" but that's just a nicer way of saying "let's extract more money from corporations via a higher effective tax rate".  Does it matter if it is a "closed loophole" or a higher rate when the net effect is that businesses pay more taxes?  I think not.  So, it's important to examine where we stand currently.  As of right now, the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  (4)  In fact, a substantial percentage of economists are pushing for decreasing the US corporate tax rate to stimulate the economy.  (5)  So, we have Democrats saying we should increase corporate taxes to balance the budget while Republicans are saying leave it alone or even cut the corporate tax rate to stimulate growth.  Which side is right?  And where can we look for answers?  Let's look at Delaware to see if we can find some answers.  Delaware has long had the reputation for being very tax friendly towards corporations and businesses in general.  In fact, for companies incorporated in Delaware who don't do business in Delaware there is no corporate tax rate above the federal tax rate.  (6)   In addition, Delaware is well known to be extraordinarily business friendly in other ways including legally and regarding asset protection.  What is the end result of such policies?  Delaware is host to more than 50% of ALL the Fortune 500 companies.  (7)  I would say that there is no better place to look for guidance on how to grow a business friendly economy than Delaware.  They have shown us the best way for about 100 years with staggering success.  With their business friendly environment, they have managed to minimize unemployment which is currently at 8% for their state as compared to 9.2% for the US  (8)  Additionally, Delaware has used these successful business policies to limit the tax burden on individuals by eliminating sales tax and personal property taxes.  (9) Ultimately, I fear that increasing the effective tax rate on corporations by "closing loopholes" will end up damaging our already fragile economy further.  For these reasons, I think that the right thing to do is cut corporate taxes instead of raising them.

I'd be interested in hearing other opinions in the comments section below.

Links below for stats from above:

(1) http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/americans-making-more-than-250000/
(2) http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/11/04/what-percentage-of-federal-income-taxes-do-rich-people-really-pay/
(3) http://uselectionnews.org/politifact-51-of-american-households-pay-no-income-tax/854468/
(4) http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/jun/18/george-allen/george-allen-says-us-corporate-tax-rate-second-hig/
(5) http://seekingalpha.com/article/257977-high-u-s-corporate-tax-rate-a-barrier-to-economic-growth
(6) http://revenue.delaware.gov/services/Business_Tax/FilingCIT.shtml
(7) http://corp.delaware.gov/whycorporations_web.pdf
(8) http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST100000&dl=en&hl=en&q=delaware+unemployment+rate#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:ST100000&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en
(9) http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/edit/state/profiles/state_tax_Dela.asp

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Baseball and Politics

My son has been involved in playing some variation of organized baseball since he was 4 years old.  At this point, he plays in the "Rookie 1" division of the local Little League wherein a mechanical pitching machine is used.  This is his first (and last) full year in this division for one main reason that we'll get to in a minute.  Last year he played in the "Coach Pitch" division where the coach would make 5 or so pitches and if the kid couldn't hit the ball then a "T" was used and the child could simply hit off the "T".  The "Rookie 1" division is the bridge between the "Coach Pitch" and "Rookie 2" where the kids start pitching to each other on their own.  One of the things that really has irritated me about this league is that the coaches always want to fiddle with the machine during the game.  We have yet to play a game where the (opposing) coaches didn't waste 5-10 minutes of game time trying to adjust the machine to some fairy tale non-existent perfect setting.  I would like to point out that I am extremely proud of my son's coach because she (yes, she) basically has not wasted one second of game time adjusting the machine this year.  This is a problem for a number of reasons but two come to mind most prominently.  Number one the machine can't possibly be adjusted to anything close to a perfect setting.  It is a mechanical pitching machine and by its very nature is not perfect.  How do I know this?  Because I own one.  I bought one for my son to practice with when we started this division because I knew it would be a difficult transition for him and wanted him to be able to hit the ball well and enjoy playing the game.  So I have enough experience with the machine to say beyond any doubt that you simply cannot adjust it to throw perfect strikes every time.  The second and even more important reason that this is problematic is that the games are limited to 6 innings with the additional rule that no inning can be started after an hour and 15 minutes have passed.  So every time some coach decides to play with the machine the only thing that is accomplished for certain is to take away game time from the kids that want to play.

After a long and brutal day of clinic, I was relieved to finally get to go to my son's baseball game.  I usually serve as scorekeeper for the team but I arrived a few minutes late because of some chaos in the clinic.  I therefore was able to simply watch the game and enjoy it more as a spectator.  It was an enjoyable and close game.  Our kids plated 2 runs early on and the other team came back to score one a couple innings later.  So it was 2-1 heading into the 5th inning.  As usual, the opposing coach had wasted around 10 minutes of game time messing around with the settings of the pitching machine.  I typically tolerate this and banter back and forth with the person keeping score for the other team regarding the futility of it almost in hopes that they will relay some of those sentiments on to the coach.  So the end of the 5th inning rolls around and our team is up 2-1 at a total game time of 1 hour and 15 minutes.  The umpires rightfully call the end of the game at that point and the teams line up to shake each others hand and congratulate one another.  The opposing team's coach comes out to the umpires loudly protesting that the game time is only 1 hour and 14 minutes and that we should play the 6th inning.  The umpires refused and the coach stewed on about it for several minutes.  I finally couldn't contain myself any longer and yelled out to the coach that if he hadn't wasted 10 minutes of game time adjusting the pitching machine that we would have been able to play the 6th inning.  The umpires looked my way with a grin and a shake of the head and the opposing coach tucked tail and walked off.  The end of game congratulations were carried out and our coach met with the team for several minutes after that as per the usual routine.  We gathered the kids and equipment and started walking back to the truck.  On the way, we passed the opposing coach complaining to one of the league officials that "the umpires wouldn't let us start the 6th inning even though we were only 1 hour and 14 minutes in and our team was down 2-1".  And there you have it.  If his team would have been ahead then I'm sure he wouldn't have been nearly as excited about that last inning.  But everyone is jockeying for playoff position and he is worried about his record.  (Playoffs in a baseball league for 7 year olds using mechanical pitching being another farce all it's own but I guess I could save that for another day).  I wanted to go back and punch that dipshit in the face but being on Little League grounds I figured that would be a bad idea.

For the record, I wouldn't be surprised if the Little League sent me a reprimand for yelling out at the end of the game and that's fine if they do.  I just couldn't tolerate any more of the absurdity of complaining about an extra minute to play one last inning when he had wasted 10 times that in a futile effort to adjust the pitching machine to his teams best advantage.

So, I'm sure you're wondering how the heck I'm gonna tie this one back into politics.  Well, it occurred to me a couple of games back when we watched one coach that was particularly egregious with the amount of time he spent adjusting the pitching machine.  It all boils down to the mindset of these people who waste so much time adjusting the pitching machine and how they approach life.  Their approach is based on the presupposition that every kid can be successful.  It then logically follows that if the kid isn't successful then the system must be to blame.  Therefore, they feel justified in trying to manipulate the system (pitching machine) to the point that it is perfect for everyone and no single kid fails.  Unfortunately, this is simply not possible and some kids are doomed to fail (strike out) no matter what because they aren't any good at baseball to begin with and even with a perfect pitch (system) they won't be able to hit it (succeed).  No system (setting) can be created that is perfect and that enables everyone to succeed.  It occurred to me that this is exactly the problem with the Democratic party mindset.  Their viewpoint is that everyone is capable of success and if they didn't succeed in life then the system somehow failed them.  Therefore the system can and should be manipulated until it enables them to succeed.  It then logically follows that if they failed in life they should be compensated because the system is to blame.  This is exactly the mindset of how we end up with massive welfare and entitlement programs that prop up these people at the expense of everyone else.  After all, their failure was due to a problem with the same system that allowed everyone else to succeed.  Adjusting the pitching machine is a microcosm of that.  If we spend too much time adjusting the pitching machine, then the kids who are good at baseball and enjoy it become bored and disinterested at the same time the kids who are no good at baseball are failing no matter what you do.  By adjusting the machine too much, we've created a system where no one can succeed because those capable are hindered (taxed) too much and those incapable have a fate that is unchanged.  My opinion is that each and every kid has the same opportunity to see pitches from the machine.  Some will be good and some will be bad.  It is the kids responsibility to learn to identify the good pitches and swing at them and also to learn to identify the bad pitches and lay off of them.  I don't think we can blame the system (pitching machine) because it is equally fair for everyone and the kids simply need to learn to work within the system and learn how to hit (succeed).  But then again, I am a Libertarian who is all about some personal responsibility and accountability.

So next year, ready or not, we are headed for Rookie 2 baseball for a number of reasons.  First and foremost, my son wants to pitch and I really think he could do a decent job of it.  Second, he has had trouble adjusting to the machine for a number of reasons.  These include the lack of arm motion with the machine that makes it difficult to pick up on the ball.  Also the variability in the location of the pitches has been difficult for him.  Last and not least, I just can't handle any more adjusting of the pitching machine.  Vote Ron Paul if you can't handle any more adjusting of the pitching machine either and you just want to let the kids play.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Why high gas prices could be good for all of us

It seems that everywhere I look these days there are doomsday stories of how we are going to see $5 or $6 prices for a gallon of gasoline by the end of the summer.  Fox News runs stories on this topic about every 12-15 minutes and seems to be trying to speculate that higher gas prices will be the down fall of Obama's re-election bid in 2012.  CNN has spent a fair amount of air time on the topic as well with a slightly more positive spin at times.  I have seen print press articles too numerous to count and it seems to be soaking up a fair amount of bandwidth online as well.  Obama even appointed a commission to look into price fixing or other such ways that we could be getting gouged at the pump.  There certainly is no shortage of discussion on this topic.  There are a multitude of reasons behind this increase in gas prices and to avoid a dissertation on supply and demand and economics I will not cover that here.  The reality is that the price of a gallon of gas is already "high" and will get much "higher".  I put those in quotations because we still pay relatively little compared to what other countries pay.  An immediate example would be Bermuda (a lovely place I just visited) where gas prices are hovering at $8 to $9 per gallon.  In most European countries the price of a gallon of gas is similar to Bermuda but usually a slight bit less.  For instance, in England the prices are running around $7 - $8 per gallon (though they sell it by the liter or litre on that side of the pond).

As a driver of a gigantic truck that gets an EPA estimated 14 mpg city and 19 mpg highway, I'll be the first to say that I wouldn't necessarily welcome such a scenario.  It would certainly cause a lot of inconveniences and there would be plenty of adjustments that would need to be made.  And I will be the first to admit that the rising prices have already started to make a small but measurable amount of impact on my day to day driving decisions.  I'm being a bit more mindful of that little area on the instrument cluster that gives the average and instant estimated mpg.  But with the estimated price increased that may unfold through the next season or two there will be more significant changes to come.  But what will those changes be both short term and long term and what will be the consequences?

The first and most obvious change people are likely to make will be something similar to what I have already started doing.  People will start using the brake less and accelerating a little less vigorously.  The next accommodation will be that trips will be bundled or avoided altogether if possible.  A more drastic measure would be to trade in that gas guzzler for a smaller car with higher efficiency.  We saw a slight bit of that the last time gas prices soared but it was really artificially boosted by the tremendously costly "Cash for Clunkers" government program.  However, if we see sustained prices in the $5 - $6 range we may very well see more people that have no choice but to travel by automobile starting to trade in some of that extra size and luxury for some extra efficiency and affordability.  If these changes are sustained over an even longer period of time then more drastic changes will come.  Eventually those that live within shorter distances of their needed destinations may choose to use a bicycle or moped or even go biped (walk) when physically possible.  Over a longer term, people may even choose to live closer to their needed destinations to avoid the need for travel by automobile.  All these are viable options to minimize gasoline consumption in the near and long term in an effort to control household costs associated with its consumption. 

But how on Earth could all those changes be considered a GOOD thing for all of us?  I know the premise of paying more for a commodity and having to make unwanted changed in our lives to minimize the negative financial impact sounds utterly absurd but hear me out.

The first change that I mentioned above is likely already being instituted on a fairly large scale.  Do you try not to stop for that red light but rather coast slowly up to it trying to avoid the dreaded full stop?  Are you being a little more mindful of how you pull out at that 4-way stop trying to conserve just a little fuel?  Have you checked your tire pressure shooting for that optimum 32 psi to maximize mileage?  Then you are already taking part in the changes.  Congratulations.  Not only are you protecting your wallet in exchange for a few seconds added to your arrival time, you are also reducing your greenhouse gas emissions.  In my gigantic truck, I can easily go from about 13.5-14mpg in city driving to about 15.5-16mpg simply by obeying the speed limit, minimizing brake usage, using "rolling stops" to avoid having to start from a standstill and accelerating judiciously.  I haven't even seen a measurable change in my arrival times but my fuel mileage has increased by about 12%.  If I'm spewing 12% less greenhouse gases/CO2 into our environment, that has to be good right?  That's a very tangible improvement in my "carbon footprint" and it actually saves me money.  How many "green" products can you go buy that actually save you money over alternative products?  I can't think of any.  But here is one setting right in front of our faces and we're acting like it's some sort of punishment.  I guess a cooler, cleaner Earth could be thought of as a positive, right?

Now let's think more long term.  The next change I mentioned was bundling trips or avoiding them altogether.  Sounds like a bummer, huh?  You can't just jump in your cars and ride out to the shopping center to browse around and buy things you don't really need?  Have to make a list and check it twice before heading out to Wal-Mart or your favorite local grocery store?  I guess it could be thought of as a minor inconvenience.  Or you could appreciate the fact that when you do get out on the road there will be less traffic.  You could appreciate the fact that the roads aren't as torn up with pot holes and worn down at the edges because the traffic load is lighter.  In a perfect world, the state might even cut taxes because the upkeep of the roads wouldn't be as expensive with less traffic.  You might even get fewer traffic tickets.  I know it may seem outrageous but avoiding all those trips may even open up a little quality time to spend with family at home just enjoying their company.  Heck, you may even save more than expected when you don't buy that spectacular new gadget at Super Mall 3000 because you weren't needlessly browsing the stores.  I guess all those could potentially be seen as positives, right?

The next thing likely to happen would be trading in larger and less efficient vehicles for smaller and more efficient versions.  As mentioned before, we saw a fair amount of this during the "Cash for Clunkers" program but that rise in gas prices was so short lived that it wasn't really a sustained change.  When you couple that with the incentivized reason to buy, it was even less impressive.  But on a positive note, the last surge in prices did coerce the American car companies into developing some fairly impressive new smaller and more efficient models.  GM has started to roll out its ground breaking new Chevy Volt which has the potential to be an all electric model if driven less than about 60 or so miles per day.  I say "the potential to be" due to the fact it has an on board gas engine if extended range driving becomes a necessity.   Ford has rolled out some impressive compact models getting in the range of 40mpg.  Chrysler is on the verge of starting to import Fiat models from Europe that have a proven track record and are small and very efficient.  I personally can't wait to start seeing the Fiat 500 on roads here.  It is a sharp little ride.  If the masses start to trade in their larger vehicles for more efficient versions, the American car manufacturers are in a much better position to capitalize on that than they were before.  This could serve to help stabilize the American auto industry if a significant percentage of auto traders choose these models.  And even if they don't most companies like Toyota and Nissan have American factories and use American parts in percentages equivalent to and sometimes even more than their American counterparts.  And we haven't even mentioned the decrease in "greenhouse gas" emissions with these changes.  Even if people chose mopeds or public transportation we would see big decreases in greenhouse gases as well.  I guess stabilizing the American auto market and cutting back on greenhouse gases to protect our Earth could be thought of as a good thing, right?

Let's get more drastic, shall we?  Let's say we go 2-3 years with gas prices sustained in the $6 range.  This would motivate many more people to use bicycles or walking as alternative transportation solutions.  With the explosion of obesity in this country (no pun intended), many maladies have come along with it.  The number of people suffering from diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol and heart disease are increasing at an alarming rate.  If we don't get a handle on the obesity epidemic we may very well become the first generation in history to have a shorter lifespan than the generation that preceded it.  That would be an unspeakable tragedy.  In my opinion, the availability of incredibly cheap transportation by automibile has played a part in contributing to the high obesity rates.  It has become so cheap and easy to jump in a car and go wherever we want that no one even considers "manual" transportation any more.  In fact, the existence of such cheap transportation has caused us to construct an environment where it has become almost impossible to use "manual" transportation.  By building our cities out into the suburbs, we have limited the viability of this as an option for transportation.  The distances are too great and the safety is a definite concern.  But if we make the change to bicycles and walking for alternative means of transportation we can take a big step in fighting these diseases.  There are mountains of research showing that increased activity levels delays the onset and curbs the progression of diabetes in obese individuals.  There are also mountains of research showing that higher activity levels have a negative correlation with obesity (i.e. more activity decreases the likelihood of having diabetes).  If people start to choose bikes and feet for their transportation we could potentially cut off the obesity epidemic and decrease the number of people with diabetes.  I guess less obesity and less disease could be thought of as good things, right?

What if people started to live closer to their work?  When I lived in Lexington, Kentucky there was a lot of discussion about urban sprawl.  Lexington and the surrounding areas have a rich tradition of horse farms.  A lot of effort was made to reduce "urban sprawl" to protect those farms.  Unfortunately, the only thing that was really accomplished was the creation of cookie cutter neighborhoods with zero lot line.  In many of the neighborhoods there, you could literally stand between two houses and be able to touch them both at the same time.  And there were endless rows of houses like that.  "Urban sprawl" is a concept that nearly every city has been unable to get much control over.  The bottom line is that people want to have a yard and as long as they can afford it then that is what they will have.  But with sustained high gas prices, it is a very real possibility that people will no longer be able to afford those little pink houses that have made up the American dream for so long.  If transportation via auto starts eating up a significant portion of the American family budget, then people will have no choice but to live closer to their work which would effectively halt urban sprawl.  Maybe we have finally stumbled on the panacea for urban sprawl.  Maybe we finally have the reason to stop paving paradise and putting up parking lots.  Maybe we can finally stop encroaching ever further on wildlife habitat.  I guess those could be seen as good things, right?

But what about business?  How is business going to be affected by surging energy prices?  Well, you have me there.  Businesses large and small will be affected and the majority in a negative way.  Wal-Mart will no longer be able to truck your Heinz ketchup from Pittsburgh to Los Angeles without a hefty mark up because that transportation will be pretty costly.  McDonald's will have to increase their dollar menu to a 2 dollar menu because the cost of transporting buns and burgers will be drastically higher.  Your local convenience store will have to charge more for your Coke and Snickers because it too has to be trucked in at an increased cost.  In fact, the cost of nearly every tangible good will likely increase in a substantial amount.  All that seems bad, huh?  So where is the positive?  We'd likely see an increased demand for products made locally because of the competitive advantage conferred by not having to be transport their goods as far.  That increased demand could possibly create the economic circumstances needed to spur local business development and small business growth which have historically been the engine of economic recovery.  It's possible that could lead our economy out of its prolonged funk.  We'd likely see more locally grown fruits and vegetables available.  Who needs to buy blackberries from South America that have been transported halfway around the world at considerable cost when you can buy blackberries from the Chesterfield Berry Farm at a fraction of the cost?  As an added benefit, there would be less need for spray pesticides and preservatives because of the decreased time from harvest to store shelf to kitchen table.  Existing small business would likely see record growth.  Instead of buying that more expensive Miller Lite trucked in from Milwaukee you just might buy that Legend Brown Ale made locally here in your hometown at a fraction of the cost.  I guess at least some of those things could be seen as a positive, right?

So, there you have it.  After what has seemed like a non-stop major news media onslaught of negativity and doomsday predictions if gas prices continue to go up and stay that way, I just wanted to point out that maybe not all of it would be doom and gloom.  If we choose to look hard enough and in the right way, we can see the positive in anything out there.  After all, that's what gets us through the day anyway.  Life isn't about having everything that makes you happy.  It's about learning to be happy with what you have.  I choose to be happy no matter what.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Where My Parents Got It Right

As most of you already know, my wife teaches a 5th grade gifted education class at a local elementary school.  She has about 10 years of experience teaching in a variety of classroom settings ranging from "inner city" to "suburban privileged."  She has truly enjoyed and appreciated seeing the broad spectrum of educational settings and has come to appreciate her current position very much.  As you can imagine, she has also seen the spectrum of behavioral issues including what likely represents the entire range of children with ADHD from mild to wild.  As you would imagine, some of those experiences have been difficult and some have been quite rewarding.  She has seen children go from barely functional to fully integrated into the classroom setting due to the miracle of modern medicines.  Unfortunately, she has also seen a considerable number of children who seemed to have no improvement on medications but the parents were still convinced they were necessary and efficacious although there was no tangible evidence to support that.

As nearly all of you know, I am a physician working towards specializing in both Internal Medicine and Pediatrics.  I have certainly seen no shortage of parents bringing their children into the Pediatric Clinic for evaluation of possible ADHD and have been involved in managing ADHD enough to have some degree of comfort with it.  I have seen and evaluated children that I felt undoubtedly had signs and symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of ADHD.  I have prescribed medicines for some of those children and have gotten reports back from parents that the medications were helping immensely.  As you can see, I believe that ADHD is a real diagnosis/condition.  I choose those words carefully, though.  I feel that ADHD is not a "disorder" but rather is on the spectrum of normal behavior with a tendency towards the extreme end.  I believe strongly that it overlaps with a number of true psychiatric disorders in many cases and that is unfortunate because it leads to negative stereotyping and labeling of children afflicted with the condition.  I believe strongly that it is extremely over-diagnosed and that medications are thrown at a number of children/families in haphazard fashion. 

We live in a world today that demands a diagnosis for every subtle nuance in behavior or any deviation from "normal" whatever that may mean.  This has led to an explosion in the number of diagnoses for every type of condition ranging from seasonal allergies to autism spectrum disorders to restless leg syndrome to fibromyalgia to, yes, even ADHD.  Many things that would likely have resulted in a stern "talking to" or a swift swat to the bottom in days of yore now result in a diagnosis and prescription.  This is a little unfortunate because it has alleviated the need for a lot of children today to take responsibility for their own behavior.  It prevents children from adapting to their personal shortcomings and devising ways to enable them to be functional and successful human beings without the need for pharmacologic or social assistance.  I'd like to relate one particular example of this happening.

One of my wife's students this year carries a diagnosis of ADHD and is on medicine.  OK, more than one but for the purposes of this story one in particular.  He is undoubtedly a talented and intelligent child as many children with "ADHD" are.  He has qualified for the magnet gifted education program in the area where we live and by my wife's account has been a more than capable student even in the competitive environment that exists in the gifted education program.  Unfortunately, his grades have suffered to some extent as a result of his ADHD type behaviors.  He has missed several homework assignments because he has neglected to write down the assignments and so he didn't know what they were when he got home and therefore could not possibly complete them.  Of course, his parents are highly concerned about this and scheduled a meeting with the school principal and his primary teacher (my wife).  At the meeting, his parents requested that each of his teachers help out by writing down his homework assignments for him and sending them home so that the parents could then prompt him to do his homework.  On the surface, this may sound like a reasonable request but when thinking about it more deeply I take issue with it for a number of reasons.  First, it is an unreasonable demand to make for the teachers.  Why should it be the responsibility of the teacher to write down his assignments for him?  Isn't that part of the assignment - learning how to be responsible enough to write it down and then remember to do it?  Secondly, where does that responsibility end?  Each of the three 5th grade gifted teachers at the school where my wife works has roughly 30 students.  Should they each be responsible for writing down the assignments of 30 students to help them remember?  Thirdly, doesn't it give him an unfair advantage if he has someone helping him remember his assignments and reducing his need to be responsible?  As if that wasn't enough problems with this request, I have still more.  I wonder when exactly these parents are going to decide to teach this child how to be responsible.  I wonder when they are going to let him develop his own adaptations and overcome his shortcomings.  I wonder when they are going to let him fail so that he might learn from that failure.

Let me be clear about ADHD and me.  There is no doubt that if I was growing up in today's world I would be labeled as having ADHD.  I displayed all the characteristic behaviors early on in life.  I was a handful for my teachers not because I wasn't capable but because I was disinterested and easily distracted, a "troublemaker" or whatever you want to call it.  I made mostly good grades up through high school not because of my diligence but because I was intelligent enough that I didn't really have to do much work to keep up.  I got easy A's in classes that could hold my attention and nearly flunked those that didn't hold my attention and I didn't really care either way.  I got a "D" the first semester of my freshman year in high school in a typewriting class (yeah, we used real typewriters) because I just wasn't interested in the class and decided to talk to my friends and be disruptive because that was more fun.  I got a "C" in high school Chemistry because I didn't like the teacher and wasn't all that into it at the time.  I got a "B" in 8th grade Science class even though I had A's on every assignment because I didn't turn in my folder of all my work.  Not turning in folders was a recurring theme in many of my classes and I lost a ton of easy points because it was a lot of work for a kid with "ADHD." Keeping up with a lot of papers was difficult and I reasoned that it didn't really reflect any level of intelligence anyway so I just didn't even attempt to do it.  That really drove my parents crazy.  And let me be the first to say I absolutely never did homework in junior or senior high school.  I managed to get through high school relatively unscathed in spite of myself.  I then landed in a small college for undergrad.  I didn't really apply myself there either for a number of reasons.  When I felt like it I could do relatively well but I rarely felt like it.  I preferred to party my way through school, hanging out with friends and having fun and very infrequently studying.  I did start doing some homework but just enough to get by.  But still no one was forcing me into performing well in school and that was probably a good thing.  By that time, my mom had passed away and my dad was relatively hands off with directing my life (again probably a good thing).  Eventually I would graduate with a less than stellar GPA and a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration.  I ended up working for a few years before deciding to truly get my life together (maturing?).  Eventually I would develop some coping mechanisms in part due to a number of activities I was involved in and life experiences and probably the aging process itself.  I then decided to go back to school and got a Bachelor's Degree in Chemistry and gained acceptance to Medical School. 

I am truly thankful for my parents approach to all the problems I gave them.  Rather than cajole me into doing every little assignment and having my teachers write down my homework assignments, they were able to practice enough restraint to let me learn from my mistakes.  And they did let me make plenty of mistakes.  And it did take a long time for me to get myself together.  I know it was VERY hard for my mom to sort of stand on the sidelines and let me find my way all while her health was dwindling.  I know very well that if I had managed to listen to her and do all those things she said I should do that I would have been a few years ahead of schedule from where I am today.  And, yes, my folks were right a lot of the time.  But the place they got it most right was in having the patience to let me find out for myself how to do things, to develop my own coping mechanisms, to let me find my way and even to fail when necessary so that I might learn what that is like and how to keep it from happening when it really counts. 

I wonder how kids like the little boy in my wife's class are going to turn out.  How can we possibly expect him to mature when he has no reason to?  How can we possibly expect him to figure out a way to remember to do his homework if his parents get the accommodation they are requesting and his teachers have to write down his assignments?  Is it even a big deal if he gets a "B" or God forbid a "C" in 5th grade because he forgets to do his homework?  Isn't that the best possible place to learn that responsibility?  I mean, who really cares about this kids grades in 5th grade?  In the grand scheme of things, they are absolutely meaningless.  They're not going to prevent him from getting into college, right?  Is his ego so fragile that he can't handle a fail here and there so that he can have the opportunity to make adjustments and learn from those mistakes?  Are his parents being too overbearing?  And for that matter, should he even be on medicine if he was smart enough to qualify for gifted classes without the medicine?

I think we as a society are expecting too much out of our kids.  If they somehow don't perform perfectly, we are searching for a diagnosis and a medicine to make them better.  We expect them to get straight A's and conform to our unrelentingly high standards.  We freak out if they miss an assignment.  I think the lesson we need to learn most is that it's OK to fail and sometimes the best learning is born from that failure.  If kids never have to pick themselves up and dust themselves off then try again to do better, how can we expect them to be able to persevere and become functional adults capable of dealing with all the stresses that life can throw at them?  I guess the bottom line is that I am incredibly thankful that my parents were OK with letting me fail and even fall on my face from time to time.  And I am incredibly glad they were there to help pick me back up and encourage me to try again until I got it right because without them I wouldn't be prepared to deal with the life I have to lead now.  I wouldn't be able to see the inevitable failures and be able to not only deal with them but find the motivation in those failures to do better and overcome them.  And for that I am incredibly thankful.  I can only hope that I am blessed with the same patience in dealing with my children so that they too may learn how to deal with life.  One fail at a time.

Friday, January 7, 2011

A real immigration solution

There has been a fair amount of debate on immigration in this country lately and it has certainly become something of a "hot button" political topic.  You have the right side of the aisle arguing against immigration in general.  They seem to believe that if we let one more Mexican into our country that somehow that extra little oomph will destroy the economy, bankrupt Social Security, overburden Medicare and Medicaid and unbalance the price of vegetables all while simultaneously causing us to lose the "War on Drugs".  I, of course, am only mildly exaggerating there.  Meanwhile, you have the lefties who seem more in favor of our traditional immigration policy which is to say essentially a total lack of policy.  OK, I jest.  The left seems to favor our traditional stance which is more or less to not enforce the existing policies as they are written.  Really neither of those stances is viable in the long term.  If we choose the right side, the logical conclusion is that we have to build huge hideous monstrosities along our border to prevent easy passage between countries.  We would also need to hire a bushel or fifty of border guards and arm them appropriately to prevent any criminals from trespassing.  This would certainly not be a definitive fix, though.  How could it be?  The drug smugglers have already shown they are capable of building elaborate underground labyrinths to circumvent any attempt at stanching the flow of lucrative drugs into our fine country.  So, it would seem to be unbelievably short sighted to build an enormously expensive structure when the means to bypass it already exist and have been proven to work.  On the left side, we have basically our current policy.  I would argue that for the most part it really hasn't been TOO horrible as it is but it is a dangerous proposition as well.  In the long term, having laws that are at best not enforced willingly or at worst are unenforceable promotes a lack of respect for the law and essentially emboldens the populace not only to ignore that particular law but others which may be more essential.  Think about it for a minute.  When you are on a road that has a 35mph speed limit but everyone else seems to be doing 50mph do you continue to do 35mph or do you sort of keep up with the traffic flow?  When you are doing 50mph in that 35mph zone are you more or less likely to stop for that yellow light?  So the current policy is dangerous for similar reasons but also because of other existing policy issues.  The 14th amendment would be a reasonable place to start that discussion.  When people talk about the 14th amendment they are mostly referring to the Citizenship Clause which was a response to the 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v Sandford that held blacks could not be citizens.  The 14th amendment (and more specifically the Citizenship Clause) which was enacted in July 1868 states that those children born in the USA are citizens.  This was originally intended to apply to freed slaves but later the merit and intent of this amendment was tested in the Supreme Court.  The case of United States v Wong Kim Ark in 1898 held that under the 14th amendment a man born in the USA to foreign nationals (in this case Chinese citizens) who have permanent domicile and residence in the USA and are carrying on business in the USA and whose parents are not foreign diplomats or here in other official capacity by a foreign power are citizens of the USA.  Currently, this is bounced around in the media as the "Anchor Baby" law.  Thus it is known due to foreign nationals who come to this country late in pregnancy with what would seem to be the intent of dropping a litter and instantly having legal protection against exportation due to their status as parents and caretakers of a US citizen (i.e. having an anchor).  If you look at this closely, it would seem this is only possible based on a lack of willingness to enforce the laws as written and instead applying a loose interpretation.  What I am saying is that if you look at the letter of the law, those that traverse a border and squirt out a baby only gain citizenship if they were here and permanently domiciled while carrying on business and not here in official capacity from another country.  Certainly, if we just enforced this as written it would eliminate a fair percentage of these so-called "Anchor babies".  But enforcing that law to the letter would soak up an inordinate amount of resources and may not give us the result we are looking for despite our best efforts.  But why is the Anchor Baby a problem in the first place?  The right wing would have you believe that having (mostly poor blue collar) families cross the border and have a baby entitled to citizenship is a financial drain on the government due to social programs such as WIC and Medicaid.  While there is a degree of validity to this argument, it is also true that if we simply enforced the rules as written this would not be an issue.  So, it should be fairly apparent that this is one fine mess with no viable solution.  Or is it?  What if we instituted a brand new policy on immigration that was more enforceable, more rational, and had the potential to alter the demographics of those who choose to immigrate in the first place?  I would suggest a three headed monster as a solution.  By that I mean there should be three pathways to achieve legal citizenship.  The first option would be a "buy in".  In this model, you could pay a one time fee to obtain legal status.  This would be great because it would be consistent with the "American Way" in that those who would use this pathway would already be accustomed to buying their way into whatever they want.  The buy in price would have to be set fairly high, say $50,000 or possibly more.  This would ensure a certain percentage of white collar workers exercising this pathway.  In addition, such a large fee would assure us that people coming in via this route had a good level of commitment to staying.  The second pathway to legal citizen status would be to serve for a period of 3 years in our military.  This would be a period in which the candidate for citizenship would be paid in accordance with what other military enrollees are paid and they would be expected to be competent in their verbal and written communications in the English language because the battlefield is not a place for poor communications.  The third and final pathway to citizenship would be to spend a period of 7 years in the USA working and paying taxes.  This trial period would not entitle the candidates to any social benefits such as Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security even while they toiled away and put money into the pot for these programs.  This would allow us to build some sustainability into these social assistance programs while providing a reasonable pathway to citizenship for those who would like to seek it.  In addition, it would allow for the same worker protections afforded legal citizens to these hard working citizen candidates while they worked to prove their commitment to this country.  So, there you have it.  My possibly overly simplistic solution to immigration.  I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on how to fix this issue.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Don't fall for this scam!

I recently posted a link on Facebook to an article on Fox Business reporting that Goldman Sachs has invested $50 million and a Russian investor (Digital Sky Technologies) has invested an additional $450 million in Facebook based on a prediction that the company's valuation is at $50 billion.  To me, this is the most blasphemous financial speculation I have come across in some time.  There is simply no way that the intellectual property and hard assets of Facebook could have valuation at anything near that exorbitant amount.  For comparisons sake, let's look at some other tech companies that are already publicly traded.  Yahoo is valued at roughly $20 billion.  Their fiscal 2010 revenue hovered between $4 and $5 billion.  Facebook's revenue was down around $2.5 billion.  Yahoo also leads Facebook in total percentage of internet users by roughly 8% though Facebook users spend more in total amount of time on that site.  Yahoo's revenue per user runs at about $8 while Facebook's revenue per user runs at about $4.  Let's also look at Google's valuation.  That company is worth about $180 billion with total 2010 revenue just over $20 billion.  Google also leads Facebook in total internet users but by only about 6%.  However, Google's revenue per user is about $24.  These are the most comparable companies to Facebook in that they provide only digital or cloud service and not hard goods like eBay or Amazon does.  However, if you look at eBay and Amazon you will find that they have valuations closer to Facebook (about $40 billion and $80 billion respectively) but they annihilate Facebook in terms of revenue at $9 billion and $30 billion respectively in 2010.  So it would appear that this newly reported valuation of Facebook is inflated to a large degree.  As everyone knows Facebook is free though.  Right?  So how do they make money now and what are their long term plans for revenue generation?  They get the majority of their revenue currently from advertisements (those things on the right side of your Facebook page that apparently at least some of you actually click).  The rest of their revenue comes from the online games that are embedded into the Facebook experience wherein they get a share of revenue from sales generated in those games (like when you buy those crazy Farmville gifts).  However, it doesn't appear that their long term plan is to remain with those two income streams as their primary revenue sources.  Facebook has already positioned itself as a cross platform marketing tool.  This is evidenced by the ever increasing number of pages on Facebook from other companies such as Lowe's, Home Depot, Budweiser, Miller Lite and what seems to be a never ending list of companies.  It turns out that their long term goals are to bring in corporate electronic storefronts and make purchasing things from those electronic storefronts straight from your Facebook page possible.  An example of how this would work:  Best Buy obtains a Facebook marketing page.  They advertise certain products on that page.  Facebook functions almost as a credit card (or as PayPal currently does for eBay and other online stores) by facilitating the financial aspect of the transaction then receiving a small percentage of that transaction for their trouble.  That sounds like a sound business plan, right?  But how many people are going to be willing to use Facebook for financial transactions given their long and troubled history with regards to protecting user's privacy?  I know I wouldn't be interested in that.  Another thing that I have trouble with is Facebook's questionable business practices and evasiveness with how they operate their business.  How is that going to look when the SEC examines the company prior to their IPO?  Sounds like there could be some flaws in their business plan, right?  At best, Facebook's future financial plans are fraught with risk.  So, why then would Goldman invest in Facebook at this point?  Put another way this question would be "what do they stand to gain?"  The answer is that they stand to gain a lot financially.  I believe that they could potentially benefit from their investment when Facebook finally decides to make its IPO which most believe will end up being somewhere in 2012.  How would they benefit you may ask?  Easy.  They want to position themselves so that they are the underwriter of the IPO.  They would stand to make oodles of money initially from such an IPO as it would be very likely that there would be a huge media frenzy surrounding this event and that would drive up prices artificially.  So, I'm not that surprised that Goldman would want to invest a token sum in Facebook at this time in order to leverage themselves into the frontrunner position when Facebook needs an investment banker to underwrite the IPO.  That's sound business on the part of Goldman.  But the real losers in this deal are likely to be the unsuspecting public who succumb to the media frenzy that will no doubt surround the Facebook IPO.  They are very likely to buy their shares at artifically elevated values due to transient increased demand in the initial run in phase of selling.  Then when the world figures out that it was all just hype and that there is actually very little substance to this as an investment the bottom will fall out of the stocks value and those investors will be left holding the bag so to speak.  Goldman doesn't have to worry about the $50 billion invested now as they will make much more than that by managing the IPO.  So for them this is a sound investment.  However, for all those folks who will no doubt buy into the Facebook hype during the IPO they will lose large amounts of money.  That's my prediction anyway.  I just don't believe the hype.