When I was a youngster there was a TV show called "The Gong Show". You may remember it. A contestent would come on stage and perform a talent (usually very unsuccessfully of course). After enduring as much as they could, a judge would jump up and hit a huge Gong to signal the contestent to stop.
Congressman Akin, the Gong is being rung.
Your statement on Sunday was very offensive on so many levels. I realize that you have spent the last 48 hours apologizing profusely. However, the damage has been done. No matter how unfair you may feel that it is, the fact of the matter is that the damage is far more reaching than just your Senate Campaign in Missouri.
Despite their immediate condemnation of your statement, your statement is now being linked to the Romney/Ryan campaign as if they had said the statement themselves. This is the reality of today's political environment. You have interjected yourself into the national media and the presidential campaign in a very negative way. Rather than talking about the Economy and Jobs, they are now getting distracted with this controversy. Your continued candidacy will only prove to be a further distraction. You have become the "Christine O'Donnell of 2012."
Again the Gong is being rung. This is your queue to exit Stage Right. Please do the right thing and end your candidacy so that this controversy can quickly be forgotten and we can get back to the issues that matter in this election.
*Update - 08/21/2012 6:35pm Central
Let me be clear... while I disagree with Congressman Akin's position on abortion without exceptions, this is not the reason for my calling for his stepping down. If he had merely stated "I am against Abortion in all cases" and left it at that, this would never been a news item. My issue is that he did not have the sound judgement and political wherewithal to shut up beyond that. Instead he continued with the indefensible statement about "legitimate rape" and how a woman's body can shut down the potential for pregnancy as a result. This is complete nonsense and showed that he is not the candidate fit to represent the good people of Missouri.
Furthermore, he is completely oblivious and does not understand the far reaching damage that this has caused. We have now gone two days of talking about this issue instead of talking about the REAL issues that matter to the American People. He has proven to be a negative distraction in this election and will continue to do so as long as he is in this race.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Rising Costs for Higher Education vs Inflation
*Originally posted on December 3, 2011 on a previous, now defunct, blog site. Re-posted here for historical purposes.
I was walking through O'hare Airport earlier this week and I saw a graphic being shown on CNN that illustrated the disparate rise in Tuition vs Income over the last 20 years. Would you believe that the average tuition costs have risen 130% over the last 20 years? Here is an article from CNN Money that has the graphic at the very top:
CNN Money Article about Tuition vs Income
I am trying to remember for sure, but I swore that in 1989, I paid $56/credit hour to go to college. Today that same school charges $203.50/credit hour for In-state Undergraduate Students. In 2002-2003, it was $137, according to their website. This means that in 9 years, tuition has risen 48.54% alone. This is not an indictment against one particular University. I believe that this is a national issue and thus I am refraining from naming just one particular University.
According to Inflationdata.com, the cumulative inflation increase from August 2002 to August 2011 was 25.37%. This means that tuition in the last 9 years has increased almost TWICE the rate of inflation in the same period? Adding insult to injury, if you go back to the graph in the above article, you will see that the median income has not grown substantially in that same period. In fact it has remained rather stagnant despite inflation. I would be interested in seeing a statistic on the amount of grants offered by the Government and Scholarships offered by the schools themselves comparing that same time period? Did the amount of such aid increase at the same rate?
I can completely understand the frustration of many on this issue. While I don't share a lot of the sentiment of "Hey government, forgive my student loans!", I do believe that this issue needs to be looked at. How can Universities justify an increase in tuition that is nearly double the rate of inflation? I would welcome feedback on this issue. I would love to understand.
What does a student get in an education today, vs those received 9 years ago that can justify an increase in tuition nearly twice the rate of inflation?
While I agree that the Middle-class is probably the largest victim from this, I don't believe that this is some "class warfare" conspiracy of the rich trying to keep the middle-class down. I could not find a variable tuition rate based upon your income level. It appears that we all pay the same rate. I don't believe that anyone can blame this on Conservatives, when it is fairly widely known that most of Higher Education officials are considered to be Liberals.
In our current economic times and where we constantly hear that companies are forced to send jobs oversees due to a shortage in skilled workers (this despite a current unemployment rate of 8.6%), I believe that this is a critical issue that must be addressed. How can we expect to compete in a global market if our youth can not afford to go to college to get the skills necessary to succeed in today's workplace?
We keep hearing about how Healthcare costs are out of control and stifling our economy. I believe that a strong argument could be made about the out of control Higher Education costs as well! I would encourage you to contact your Congressional Representatives (and Senators) and raise this issue with them.
CNN Money Article about Tuition vs Income
I am trying to remember for sure, but I swore that in 1989, I paid $56/credit hour to go to college. Today that same school charges $203.50/credit hour for In-state Undergraduate Students. In 2002-2003, it was $137, according to their website. This means that in 9 years, tuition has risen 48.54% alone. This is not an indictment against one particular University. I believe that this is a national issue and thus I am refraining from naming just one particular University.
According to Inflationdata.com, the cumulative inflation increase from August 2002 to August 2011 was 25.37%. This means that tuition in the last 9 years has increased almost TWICE the rate of inflation in the same period? Adding insult to injury, if you go back to the graph in the above article, you will see that the median income has not grown substantially in that same period. In fact it has remained rather stagnant despite inflation. I would be interested in seeing a statistic on the amount of grants offered by the Government and Scholarships offered by the schools themselves comparing that same time period? Did the amount of such aid increase at the same rate?
I can completely understand the frustration of many on this issue. While I don't share a lot of the sentiment of "Hey government, forgive my student loans!", I do believe that this issue needs to be looked at. How can Universities justify an increase in tuition that is nearly double the rate of inflation? I would welcome feedback on this issue. I would love to understand.
What does a student get in an education today, vs those received 9 years ago that can justify an increase in tuition nearly twice the rate of inflation?
While I agree that the Middle-class is probably the largest victim from this, I don't believe that this is some "class warfare" conspiracy of the rich trying to keep the middle-class down. I could not find a variable tuition rate based upon your income level. It appears that we all pay the same rate. I don't believe that anyone can blame this on Conservatives, when it is fairly widely known that most of Higher Education officials are considered to be Liberals.
In our current economic times and where we constantly hear that companies are forced to send jobs oversees due to a shortage in skilled workers (this despite a current unemployment rate of 8.6%), I believe that this is a critical issue that must be addressed. How can we expect to compete in a global market if our youth can not afford to go to college to get the skills necessary to succeed in today's workplace?
We keep hearing about how Healthcare costs are out of control and stifling our economy. I believe that a strong argument could be made about the out of control Higher Education costs as well! I would encourage you to contact your Congressional Representatives (and Senators) and raise this issue with them.
My solution to changing Wall Street
*Originally posted on October 31st, 2011 on a previous, now defunct blog site. Re-posted here for historical purpose.
In my previous post, I identified three key areas where I agreed with the frustrations of the Occupy Wall Street Protesters. I also stated that I felt that the use of the "Arab Spring" tactics were flawed and were therefore doomed for failure. I believe there are more effective ways to force change.
As I stated in my previous blog, Corporate Executives could not care less about a bunch of people camping out in a park. You are not effecting their bottom line. The first thought is to organize boycotts of these companies. However, this has a very undesirable ripple effect. If you successfully organize a boycott and get people to stop buying ones products/services, then all they are going to do is reduce their workforce even more and put even more people out of work. So that doesn't really solve anything. You are just making the problem even worse.
In any interview that you see with a CEO or Executive, what is the number one thing they all say? They claim that they are not bad people, they are merely doing their job. They also clearly state that they answer to their shareholders. That is their #1 responsibility. Want to change a Corporation's behavior? Affect their stock price. I guarantee you that if a companies stock starts dropping, they will change their ways real fast. Just look at Netflix as an example. Their stock dropped over 35% after they ticked off their users. You don't think that CEO and Board is in the hot seat?
So my three gripes were:
As I stated in my previous blog, Corporate Executives could not care less about a bunch of people camping out in a park. You are not effecting their bottom line. The first thought is to organize boycotts of these companies. However, this has a very undesirable ripple effect. If you successfully organize a boycott and get people to stop buying ones products/services, then all they are going to do is reduce their workforce even more and put even more people out of work. So that doesn't really solve anything. You are just making the problem even worse.
In any interview that you see with a CEO or Executive, what is the number one thing they all say? They claim that they are not bad people, they are merely doing their job. They also clearly state that they answer to their shareholders. That is their #1 responsibility. Want to change a Corporation's behavior? Affect their stock price. I guarantee you that if a companies stock starts dropping, they will change their ways real fast. Just look at Netflix as an example. Their stock dropped over 35% after they ticked off their users. You don't think that CEO and Board is in the hot seat?
So my three gripes were:
- Outsourcing our middle class jobs oversees
- Not bringing workforce levels back despite an increase in corporate profits
- Insane Corporate bonuses that do not reflect the performance of the company.
The Primary solution to solving each of these three grips lies in affecting the stock price of a company. People spend many years of college learning how exactly a stock price is valued. But in very basic terms, it is based on what people are willing to pay for that stock. So for example, I have a stock that I believe is worth $10, but I call my broker to sell it. He says "Hey i have a stock to sell." However the best offer he can get for it is $9. Now I can say no deal and wait a little longer until someone is willing to pay me the amount I want, or I can cave and sell it for the $9. At that moment, the stock is really worth $9.
So rather than spend all of these fruitless efforts protesting, why not research and figure out all of the companies that are currently shipping good paying middle class jobs oversees. Research and identify these companies. Once you know the companies, make it politically and socially embarrassing to own stock in those companies. Sway popular opinion that it is politically and socially bad to be associated with those companies, until they bring their jobs back to the US.
The second prong to the solution is for our government to offer tax incentives encouraging companies to bring those jobs back. Not blanket tax incentives mind you One idea is a temporary payroll tax holiday on those jobs that are brought back to the US.
The third prong is the solicitation of these companies to look at moving those jobs into places that have low cost of living. Whether it is the Midwest or the South, the idea is that costs far less to employ someone in "Smalltown USA" than it does in New York or California. Foreign companies are realizing this when they are opening up manufacturing plants here in the States (Honda, Mitsubishi, Toyota, etc).
The Workforce Levels issue is tougher to solve directly. This is because it impossible to have guidelines on how many people to employ for a job. I would love to say that this is the niche that the Unions could fill. However the Labor Unions are as corrupt as the politicians (maybe even more). They don't care about their workers. They only care about power. Nothing else. So I don't have a clear solution yet. I would love to hear constructive ideas though.
As for the insane bonuses... the primary approach has to be the same as above. Affect the stock price. When a company performs badly and yet still hands out crazy bonuses then they should be vilified by the public. Make it socially awkward to be a stockholder of that company. And if a company receives a Government bailout, then the entire Board of Directors and CEO must resign as a terms of receiving that bailout.
Again the entire key is that you must affect the stock price and make it so that the stockholders are not happy. That is what will gain the attention of the Executives on Wall Street. I commend the efforts of the protesters, however take that energy and focus it in a way that will gain the result that you wish to achieve.
Rather than demonize capitalism, use it to your advantage to achieve your goal. It could not be clearer.
I am one of the 99%, but...
*Originally posted on October 30, 2011 on a previous, now defunct, blog site. Re-posted here for historical purpose.
At this point, if you have not heard of the "Occupy Wall Street" Protests (online it is referred to as #OWS), then you are most likely either living under a rock, or so engrossed in your fantasy football league that you are absolutely oblivious that there is life outside of the NFL. If you fall under either of these groups then I encourage you to hit some of the news sites and get up to speed. Basically these protests have officially been going on for a little over a month now.
Let me be clear that I do believe that there are legitimate frustrations among those that are protesting. I am absolutely positive that there are some legitimate sad stories out there. I also believe that there are many Corporations that rightfully deserve the brunt of these frustrations.
Since the late 90's I have been openly frustrated with the efforts to ship American jobs oversee's. President Obama's current "Job Czar", GE's CEO Jeff Immelt, was one of the most outspoken CEO's in the early 2000's encouraging companies that Outsourcing was key to survival in today's Global Economy. Being in the Information Technology industry, I noticed this most with programming jobs being shipped over to India. I disagreed with Republicans who kept telling us that outsourcing our jobs oversees was a good thing. Why? Because we aren't talking $12-18 factory jobs making cars. We are talking about technology jobs and service jobs like call centers and tech support. People making $60-100k. These jobs are a significant portion of the middle class. So that is gripe #1.
Gripe #2: I realize that 9/11 gets blamed for a lot of things, but I don't think many can argue against the fact that our economy took a major hit after 9/11. People stopped buying as much. In the manufacturing world, when you don't sell as much product, you reduce your production levels. In the services world (people that don't make things), your #1 costs are related to your workforce, so you are required to reduce your work force. Through these efforts, companies have learned that they can scale the workforce back and force the remaining employees to pick up the slack. The common mantra is "Do more with less." I get that that is Business 101. When times are tough I get that such decisions are a matter of survival. My gripe however is that when business returned, these companies didn't re-hire those people, but instead they are pocketing the cash savings and sitting on it to make their balance sheets look even greater for their shareholders.
The "Powers at Be" are not grasping the concept that the more people employed with good-paying jobs, the more people that are in the market spending money, buying services and goods. It is the market version of the "Circle of Life". This is where I agree with the frustration of "Greed on Wall Street".
Gripe #3: I absolutely believe that a company is perfectly in their rights to reward their executives when they lead their companies to achieve goals and profits. However, I do have a gripe when I see a company receive a Government Bailout because they are in financial trouble, and then turn around a give bonuses to their executives. I will set aside the entire Government Bailout topic for another day. I am sorry, but if a company is in dire financial straits, then how can you reward your executives for this? To me, it would be logical that if your company got itself into financial trouble and the government has to step in and give you tax payer dollars to keep your doors open, then you should be removed from your position. To me that is common sense.
I take great pride in our Rights and Freedoms that we are afforded here in the United States. I try very hard to respect everyone's right to form and possess their own opinions. The same goes with the right to assemble and protest. I believe it is a wonderful attribute of our society that you can assemble and make your position known without fear of tanks and military people gunning you down like we have seen in Iran, Libya, and recently Syria.
Despite all of this, I refuse to stand with the Occupy Wall Street people. There are a number of reasons for this. First of all, I don't believe that this is a "non-organized grass roots" effort by "the people". In fact, if you just go to the OccupyWallSt.org website and scroll to the bottom you will read that back in June this effort was started by Adbusters. If you google Adbusters, you will see that they do not hide the fact that they are a Anti-consumerism Magazine out of Vancouver. They are Anti-Capitalism. Just reading through their information, you can clearly see that they want to destroy our economy.
Again citing their website, on August 12th they clearly state the following quote:
Furthermore, I believe that the strategy of using the "Arab Spring" tactics is flawed. First of all, those efforts were the people rising up against the government. They were directly revolting against the power of the government. Wall Street could care less about a bunch of people camping out in a park. Their bottom lines are not affected in any way by these efforts. And the politicians in Washington? They are completely confused on what to do. The Democrats are so scared of the Tea Party, they would love to find an alternative grass roots effort to combat the Tea Party. But the lack of clarity in the message leaves way too much room for the radical anarchists to get involved (as we saw recently in Rome), and the Democrats know they will lose the Moderate vote if that happens. So for those reasons, I believe that these protests are flawed, misguided, and doomed for failure.
So what is the answer? What is the solution to address the problems that causing all of this legitimate frustration? How can we the people affect change in Corporate USA? I have some ideas. And that will be the topic of my next blog.
Let me be clear that I do believe that there are legitimate frustrations among those that are protesting. I am absolutely positive that there are some legitimate sad stories out there. I also believe that there are many Corporations that rightfully deserve the brunt of these frustrations.
Since the late 90's I have been openly frustrated with the efforts to ship American jobs oversee's. President Obama's current "Job Czar", GE's CEO Jeff Immelt, was one of the most outspoken CEO's in the early 2000's encouraging companies that Outsourcing was key to survival in today's Global Economy. Being in the Information Technology industry, I noticed this most with programming jobs being shipped over to India. I disagreed with Republicans who kept telling us that outsourcing our jobs oversees was a good thing. Why? Because we aren't talking $12-18 factory jobs making cars. We are talking about technology jobs and service jobs like call centers and tech support. People making $60-100k. These jobs are a significant portion of the middle class. So that is gripe #1.
Gripe #2: I realize that 9/11 gets blamed for a lot of things, but I don't think many can argue against the fact that our economy took a major hit after 9/11. People stopped buying as much. In the manufacturing world, when you don't sell as much product, you reduce your production levels. In the services world (people that don't make things), your #1 costs are related to your workforce, so you are required to reduce your work force. Through these efforts, companies have learned that they can scale the workforce back and force the remaining employees to pick up the slack. The common mantra is "Do more with less." I get that that is Business 101. When times are tough I get that such decisions are a matter of survival. My gripe however is that when business returned, these companies didn't re-hire those people, but instead they are pocketing the cash savings and sitting on it to make their balance sheets look even greater for their shareholders.
The "Powers at Be" are not grasping the concept that the more people employed with good-paying jobs, the more people that are in the market spending money, buying services and goods. It is the market version of the "Circle of Life". This is where I agree with the frustration of "Greed on Wall Street".
Gripe #3: I absolutely believe that a company is perfectly in their rights to reward their executives when they lead their companies to achieve goals and profits. However, I do have a gripe when I see a company receive a Government Bailout because they are in financial trouble, and then turn around a give bonuses to their executives. I will set aside the entire Government Bailout topic for another day. I am sorry, but if a company is in dire financial straits, then how can you reward your executives for this? To me, it would be logical that if your company got itself into financial trouble and the government has to step in and give you tax payer dollars to keep your doors open, then you should be removed from your position. To me that is common sense.
I take great pride in our Rights and Freedoms that we are afforded here in the United States. I try very hard to respect everyone's right to form and possess their own opinions. The same goes with the right to assemble and protest. I believe it is a wonderful attribute of our society that you can assemble and make your position known without fear of tanks and military people gunning you down like we have seen in Iran, Libya, and recently Syria.
Despite all of this, I refuse to stand with the Occupy Wall Street people. There are a number of reasons for this. First of all, I don't believe that this is a "non-organized grass roots" effort by "the people". In fact, if you just go to the OccupyWallSt.org website and scroll to the bottom you will read that back in June this effort was started by Adbusters. If you google Adbusters, you will see that they do not hide the fact that they are a Anti-consumerism Magazine out of Vancouver. They are Anti-Capitalism. Just reading through their information, you can clearly see that they want to destroy our economy.
Again citing their website, on August 12th they clearly state the following quote:
"Strategically speaking, there is a very real danger that if we naively put our cards on the table and rally around the "overthrow of capitalism" or some equally outworn utopian slogan, then our Tahrir moment will quickly fizzle into another inconsequential ultra-lefty spectacle soon forgotten. But if we have the cunning to come up with a deceptively simple Trojan Horse demand … something profound, yet so specific and doable that it is impossible for President Obama to ignore … something that spotlights Wall Street's financial capture of the US political system and confronts it with a pragmatic solution … like the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act … or a 1% tax on financial transactions … or an independent investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into the corporate corruption of our representatives in Washington … or another equally creative but downright practical demand that will emerge from the people's assemblies held during the occupation … and if we then put our asses on the line, screw up our courage and hang in there day after day, week after week, until a large swath of Americans start rooting for us and President Obama is forced to respond … then we just might have a crack at creating a decisive moment of truth for America, a first concrete step towards achieving the radical changes we all dream about unencumbered by commitments to existing power structures."This didn't come from Glenn Beck, Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh. This is clearly stated on the OccupyWallSt.org website under the "Update from Adbusters" dated August 12th. For this reason alone I refuse to support these protests. I adamantly disavow the Adbusters agenda.
Furthermore, I believe that the strategy of using the "Arab Spring" tactics is flawed. First of all, those efforts were the people rising up against the government. They were directly revolting against the power of the government. Wall Street could care less about a bunch of people camping out in a park. Their bottom lines are not affected in any way by these efforts. And the politicians in Washington? They are completely confused on what to do. The Democrats are so scared of the Tea Party, they would love to find an alternative grass roots effort to combat the Tea Party. But the lack of clarity in the message leaves way too much room for the radical anarchists to get involved (as we saw recently in Rome), and the Democrats know they will lose the Moderate vote if that happens. So for those reasons, I believe that these protests are flawed, misguided, and doomed for failure.
So what is the answer? What is the solution to address the problems that causing all of this legitimate frustration? How can we the people affect change in Corporate USA? I have some ideas. And that will be the topic of my next blog.
Introduction
Welcome to my new blog, "Random Smack from Oz." Here I will be discussing random political and social issues that I find of interest. I welcome dissenting opinions, as I try to be open-minded and consider all sides to an issue. We do not have to always agree. It is my belief that healthy debate of the issues (when done in a respectable manner) is important in our efforts to improve our tomorrow.
In the beginning of my adult life I was a registered Democrat. I grew up in a family of Democrats. My parents are very loyal Democrats that to this day and do not trust anything the Republican's say. As I have aged and matured into my own being, I find that neither party "talks to me" directly per se.
If asked, I believe that I am a Fiscal Conservative, but lean towards being a Social Liberal. The older I get I find myself agreeing more with Libertarian ideals in that I want the Government to stay out of my life as much as possible. But I don't subscribe to all of the Libertarian positions either.
So with that... I hope that you enjoy reading my blog. Whether you agree or disagree with me, I hope that you will consider my view point while evaluating your own position on a particular issue.
In the beginning of my adult life I was a registered Democrat. I grew up in a family of Democrats. My parents are very loyal Democrats that to this day and do not trust anything the Republican's say. As I have aged and matured into my own being, I find that neither party "talks to me" directly per se.
If asked, I believe that I am a Fiscal Conservative, but lean towards being a Social Liberal. The older I get I find myself agreeing more with Libertarian ideals in that I want the Government to stay out of my life as much as possible. But I don't subscribe to all of the Libertarian positions either.
So with that... I hope that you enjoy reading my blog. Whether you agree or disagree with me, I hope that you will consider my view point while evaluating your own position on a particular issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)